It has 6inch serrated cutting teeth to eat coconuts...
T. Rex ate Coconuts says Creation Museum
By Chris V. Thangham.
Creation Museum says T-Rex used to eat coconuts and used to live at the same time as Adam and Eve.
A Creation Museum was built in Petersburg, Kentucky at a cost of $25 Million dollars. It has a 20ft waterfall and in its base children can play amongst the dinosaurs. It also shows a number of ancient people overshadowed by a giant T-Rex, Adam and Eve swimming in a river with the giant reptiles and creatures, and even a scale model of Noah’s Ark.
In this Noah’s Ark, it shows Noah taking baby dinosaurs not the giant ones, to solve the problem by fitting them into this ship. Also, it shows how dinosaurs are friendly with other animals such as giraffes, penguins, hippos and bears.
There is a museum guide tells visitors that before Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise, all the dinosaurs were peaceful plant-eaters. The guide says that in Genesis 1:30 God gives “green herb” to every creature to eat and so there are no predators. But when a museum visitor asked why “T-Rex has six inch long serrated teeth”, the guide tells them that dinosaurs use it to open the tough outer layer of the coconuts. The dinosaurs started eating flesh only after Adam and Eve sinned and was cast out of paradise.
Sarda Sahney of Scientific Blogging gives a final opinion: I think the people who built this museum are smoking a bit too much ‘green herb’.
Why would they spend $25 million dollars to create a museum that is going to be a laughing stock? There are no records available that man and dinosaurs coexisted together. They could have used this money to educate themselves and others.
Do you believe in this Creation museum’s explanation of Dinosaurs eating coconuts?
It probably won't help people who think the Earth is only 6000 years old but I don't think Coconuts had evolved when Dinosaurs existed.
I have a creationist dinosaur book somewhere and it's just wacko, full of blatant lies and untruths. For instance, they claim that Noah's ark has been proven (how?!) to have been big enough to take all the animals, but that "although there were many types of dinosaur names there were only about 50 types of dinosaurs".
They clearly don't understand what a "species" is, all those names refer to "different types" and there are thousands of distinct dinosaurs.
It's sad that these books are seemingly in continuous print for the purposes of indoctrinating and lying to children to warp their understanding of the real world.
An interesting angle? Yes it is. A sensible angle.... hmmm.
Considering that modern science has a lot of evidence that evolution happened (though it has also proved that if evolution is a complete answer there are serious problems with both human culture and the theory.) I think to believe completely in creationism is a bit silly. Also considering that Adam and Eve are the Hebrew words for man and woman I think it is not a long shot to say Genesis is a metaphor and not to be taken seriously ( it sort of fits (read loosely) with evolution in a way)
Howard A Treesong wrote:
They clearly don't understand what a "species" is, all those names refer to "different types" and there are thousands of distinct dinosaurs.
To be fair, paleontological classification is a hotly debated topic (we can hardly determine the viability of offspring), and I've definitely heard it argued that a great many "species" of dinosaur are not species at all.
Also, let's look at things from a thermodynamic/biomechanical perspective...
I'm a 180lb male human. I require 3000cals a day to function (including exercise). This is nearly ten coconuts.
I'm a 20,000lbs, 18ft tall Tyrannosaurus Rex. I require (roughly) 100,000 cals a day. This is Nearly 3 thousand coconuts.
One tree will produce c. 50 coconuts at any one time. This means that a T-Rex would need to strip 60 trees a day in order to feed itself. Then move on, as those coconuts sure don't grow overnight...
Also, neither crabs nor monkeys are ten tons of bristling 6inch teeth, yet they manage to nom down the nuts with reckless abandon.
For everytime anyone ever goes to that museum, reads whatever sign says T-Rexs ate coconuts, then goes on to believe that 'fact,' I shall kill a kitten.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
They clearly don't understand what a "species" is, all those names refer to "different types" and there are thousands of distinct dinosaurs.
To be fair, paleontological classification is a hotly debated topic (we can hardly determine the viability of offspring), and I've definitely heard it argued that a great many "species" of dinosaur are not species at all.
I'm aware of that, paleobotany is even worse. But just 50 types? Give me strength.
Kilkrazy wrote:I thought T Rexes ate meat.
Well according to my book, they all ate veggies prior to the original sin. After that they some started eating each other. The fact there are no Tyrannosaurs with vegetarian teeth needs some explaining, glad they have one.
daedalus wrote:So then what is the creationist's explanation for why the dinosaurs are dead? Did they not pray hard enough?
They didn't make it to Noah's Arch. There is also reference to a horned horse in the bible, so apparently Unicorns existed once too.
Well, if you think about it, don't alot of cultures/area's in the world have some sort of idea for a Unicorn? That could lend a little bit of credence that it did.
Kind of like Dragons. Now, I'm not saying that they do exist, but alot, and I mean ALOT, of cultures seem to have some sort of dragon type creature, ya know?
Crom wrote:$25 million and that is all they could come up with? When there are like tons of creationists out there that are actually intelligent?
While I do not agree with this guy, he is obviously smart.
No he isn't. He's just an individual who knows how to sound smart in order to impress credulous people that are lacking in intellectual curiosity. It's pseudoscience.
Crom wrote:$25 million and that is all they could come up with? When there are like tons of creationists out there that are actually intelligent?
While I do not agree with this guy, he is obviously smart.
No he isn't. He's just an individual who knows how to sound smart in order to impress credulous people that are lacking in intellectual curiosity. It's pseudoscience.
Kilkrazy wrote:Why didn't the dinosaurs make it to the Ark?
Noah was instructed to take a couple of every type of animal.
If I had to guess it was because the Dinosaurs rebelled against God.....who knows why they died off? Creationists say that Satan put dinosaur bones on the earth to fool us. Noah also lived to be 800 years old or something. However, if I recall, Noah was instructed to grab a pair of every clean animal, half a dozen different pairs of birds, and one pair of unclean animals. So the dinosaurs denounced god by not kneeling before Noah to enter the arch, which is how they were determined if they were clean or dirty animals.
Noah was not simply instructed to pick up a brace of every animal that ever existed if you take the story in a literal sense.
I am not a biblical scholar but have read the bible. If memory serves, there was no distinction between a clean and dirty animal to mankind, other than Angels notified Noah and only animals that kneel before him, and kneel before God were to be allowed on the Ark. If you ever watched any of those old Noah's Ark renditions that were animated (I think Disney did a major one) you will notice that the animals, in pairs, come to Noah, present themselves then bow and finally enter the ark.
My guess is, that the crocs did kneel and the dinosaurs were like, forget this crap I am gonna go eat meat or something.
Sigh. You know, if they had come up with a COOL reason T. Rexes had these teeth, I can just bet there'd be less flak for it.But no, let's make a lame reason to do with coconuts, that'll endear kids to our version as opposed to the meat-eating tyrant-king-of-the-lizards BADASS that evolution and paleontology proposes.
You know, one thing Creationists never answer when I ask them is: Who created God? Surely 'he' didn't just 'will' 'himself' into existance, because that's just silly...
KingCracker wrote:Sides, bananas are where its at for creationists
You know what else is the same shape as a banana right? But according to the bible, that's wrong!
Coconuts?
I dont think you did that right.
Also masturbation isnt wrong in the bible is it? I thought it just made you "go blind"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
metallifan wrote:You know, one thing Creationists never answer when I ask them is: Who created God? Surely 'he' didn't just 'will' 'himself' into existance, because that's just silly...
KingCracker wrote:Sides, bananas are where its at for creationists
You know what else is the same shape as a banana right? But according to the bible, that's wrong!
Coconuts?
I dont think you did that right.
Also masturbation isnt wrong in the bible is it? I thought it just made you "go blind"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
metallifan wrote:You know, one thing Creationists never answer when I ask them is: Who created God? Surely 'he' didn't just 'will' 'himself' into existance, because that's just silly...
Slaanesh?
I was thinking more along the lines of a TWO person activity that would involve "eating a banana".
daedalus wrote:So then what is the creationist's explanation for why the dinosaurs are dead? Did they not pray hard enough?
Well, according to my book there are a few "creationist" theories. One is that the flood destroyed all the plants so they starved to death (Yes, there's forward planning by God) Then they might have had all their eggs eaten by birds and mammals (not that old shaggy dog story) or my favourite, that they were hunted into extinction by man, accompanied with a picture of a 15th century knight. The story of George and the Dragon is supposedly proof of this.
I'm just glad that there was a very expansive human gene-pool onboard the Ark to stop us suffering the negative effects of thousands of years of inbreeding- OHWAIT!
Now and again I'll be talking to someone, find out they are creationists and think "I suppose you're entitled to your opinions and I suppose you're not really hurting anyone". If it's being taught in museums and schools, however, it should have signs everywhere making sure people know it is theory, opinion and mostly based on stories.
Come to think of it, a fair bit of science could use the same thing.
This is what the most powerful of all lizards has been reduced to?
Wasn't there any meat in Biblical times?
The same God that preferred animal sacrifices over plant sacrifices and chilled with Satan while they both murdered and destroyed a man's family to prove a point, then give said man hookers afterwards, apparently is a veggie eating hippy.
Not that I agree or disagree with the idea that T-rex ate coconuts. It's certainly possible that they ate coconuts as well as people.
The thing that bothers me about this thread is that people are allowed to get away with comments like "Those crazy Christians", calling creationists "slowed 3 year olds"
if someone came on here and said something like those "crazy neopagans" are at it again..mannahin would shut it right down. Or if someone dared to point out that this article is just a snippet of information that people in this thread have kneejerked and run with it.
And yeahh believing that order and intelligence are a product of totally random unguided processes is totally more believable than to believe that a Creator designed it...yeah it's soooo much more believable....
generalgrog wrote:Not that I agree or disagree with the idea that T-rex ate coconuts. It's certainly possible that they ate coconuts as well as people.
The thing that bothers me about this thread is that people are allowed to get away with comments like "Those crazy Christians", calling creationists "slowed 3 year olds"
if someone came on here and said something like those "crazy neopagans" are at it again..mannahin would shut it right down. Or if someone dared to point out that this article is just a snippet of information that people in this thread have kneejerked and run with it.
And yeahh believing that order and intelligence are a product of totally random unguided processes is totally more believable than to believe that a Creator designed it...yeah it's soooo much more believable....
GG
I respect your point of view.
but then you aren't claiming T-rex ate coconuts instead of meat....
It's certainly possible that they ate coconuts as well as people.
I really hope i have missed the irony and you don't mean that
There is a lot of geology between dinersaws and humans
Thing is neo pagans afaik don't insist that their crazy notions are taught to all and sundry.
Afaik they don't think the terrible lizards ate people or coconuts.
Not all Christians are fruit bats most certainly. But boy there are some far out nut jobs that dream up some weird gakk and give religion a bad name.
The other thing is I am not convinced that long sharp pointy dagger teeth are that well suited to cracking open coconuts.
But let us for a moment suppose that they are, how does the Tyrannosaurus extract the fleshy coconut deliciousness from the outer casing?
It can't hold the bloody thing cos his arms are too short.
He can't chew cos he ain't got no molars only the big stabby daggers.
He can't nibble away at it with that big gob of his.
no wonder they became extinct, they bloomin well starved to death.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry Rick
don't follow
generalgrog wrote:Not that I agree or disagree with the idea that T-rex ate coconuts. It's certainly possible that they ate coconuts as well as people.
The thing that bothers me about this thread is that people are allowed to get away with comments like "Those crazy Christians", calling creationists "slowed 3 year olds"
if someone came on here and said something like those "crazy neopagans" are at it again..mannahin would shut it right down. Or if someone dared to point out that this article is just a snippet of information that people in this thread have kneejerked and run with it.
And yeahh believing that order and intelligence are a product of totally random unguided processes is totally more believable than to believe that a Creator designed it...yeah it's soooo much more believable....
GG
The actual quotation is "some crazy Christians", not "those crazy Christians".
Please use the yellow triangle to bring to the moderators' attentions rude comments.
Also, let's look at things from a thermodynamic/biomechanical perspective...
I'm a 180lb male human. I require 3000cals a day to function (including exercise). This is nearly ten coconuts.
I'm a 20,000lbs, 18ft tall Tyrannosaurus Rex. I require (roughly) 100,000 cals a day. This is Nearly 3 thousand coconuts.
One tree will produce c. 50 coconuts at any one time. This means that a T-Rex would need to strip 60 trees a day in order to feed itself. Then move on, as those coconuts sure don't grow overnight...
Also, neither crabs nor monkeys are ten tons of bristling 6inch teeth, yet they manage to nom down the nuts with reckless abandon.
For everytime anyone ever goes to that museum, reads whatever sign says T-Rexs ate coconuts, then goes on to believe that 'fact,' I shall kill a kitten.
No, TWO kittens.
Gah.
That's a lot of kittens!
Maybe you're over looking the fact that due to *magic* the T-Rex ate coconuts. Oh wait *magic* isn't a good reason... try.. um *faith*... no arguing with that!
Seriously $25million could be spent on research for a cure to cancer. Who care who/what/how the universe was made , maybe we should focus on disease, starvation and homelessness?
generalgrog wrote:Not that I agree or disagree with the idea that T-rex ate coconuts. It's certainly possible that they ate coconuts as well as people.
The thing that bothers me about this thread is that people are allowed to get away with comments like "Those crazy Christians", calling creationists "slowed 3 year olds"
if someone came on here and said something like those "crazy neopagans" are at it again..mannahin would shut it right down. Or if someone dared to point out that this article is just a snippet of information that people in this thread have kneejerked and run with it.
And yeahh believing that order and intelligence are a product of totally random unguided processes is totally more believable than to believe that a Creator designed it...yeah it's soooo much more believable....
GG
Creationists ARE thought of as wacky by most Christians as well! You represent a very small minority of Christians GG.
generalgrog wrote:And yeahh believing that order and intelligence are a product of totally random unguided processes is totally more believable than to believe that a Creator designed it...yeah it's soooo much more believable....
It is for me and many others, sure.
You want respect with one hand, and then dish out casual insults with the other. You (and indeed anyone else of any other denomination) are free to think and believe whatever you want. Doesn't mean that your views shouldn't be brought under scrutiny the same as anything else.
If someone brought you a bottle and said it contained a solution which would do something fantastic wouldn't you want some kind of independently verified proof before you put your hand in your wallet?
metallifan wrote:You know, one thing Creationists never answer when I ask them is: Who created God? Surely 'he' didn't just 'will' 'himself' into existance, because that's just silly...
Why not? If an omnipotent, omniscient being really exists what would stop it from acting through time and creating itself?
Also, let's look at things from a thermodynamic/biomechanical perspective...
I'm a 180lb male human. I require 3000cals a day to function (including exercise). This is nearly ten coconuts.
I'm a 20,000lbs, 18ft tall Tyrannosaurus Rex. I require (roughly) 100,000 cals a day. This is Nearly 3 thousand coconuts.
One tree will produce c. 50 coconuts at any one time. This means that a T-Rex would need to strip 60 trees a day in order to feed itself. Then move on, as those coconuts sure don't grow overnight...
Also, neither crabs nor monkeys are ten tons of bristling 6inch teeth, yet they manage to nom down the nuts with reckless abandon.
For everytime anyone ever goes to that museum, reads whatever sign says T-Rexs ate coconuts, then goes on to believe that 'fact,' I shall kill a kitten.
No, TWO kittens.
Gah.
That's a lot of kittens!
Maybe you're over looking the fact that due to *magic* the T-Rex ate coconuts. Oh wait *magic* isn't a good reason... try.. um *faith*... no arguing with that!
Seriously $25million could be spent on research for a cure to cancer. Who care who/what/how the universe was made , maybe we should focus on disease, starvation and homelessness?
yeahh and while we are at it...lets just shut down all science that is evolution based while we are at it. I mean it's not like anyone else has a different world view than us and of course they are soo obviously wrong they have no right whatsoever to do their own research.
It's also "magic" that life spontaneously arrived in an unguided magical way.. Or that evolution "magically spedup and slowed down when it didn't go the way we thought it was supposed to, so we'll use our faith and call this magic punctuated equilibrium even though we can't prove it....yeah the evolutionist world view is the perfect and only true way to see the world.
metallifan wrote:You know, one thing Creationists never answer when I ask them is: Who created God? Surely 'he' didn't just 'will' 'himself' into existance, because that's just silly...
Why not? If an omnipotent, omniscient being really exists what would stop it from acting through time and creating itself?
The question itself is nonsense. It's tantamount to asking why God can't make a round square. It's a logical impossibility.
metallifan wrote:You know, one thing Creationists never answer when I ask them is: Who created God? Surely 'he' didn't just 'will' 'himself' into existance, because that's just silly...
Why not? If an omnipotent, omniscient being really exists what would stop it from acting through time and creating itself?
This is a good point.
If god exists as Christians believe then he is omnipotent and thus can do whatever the hell he likes disregarding temporarily.
Also GG, I regard neopagans as far worse than Christians for pseudoscience.
generalgrog wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
metallifan wrote:You know, one thing Creationists never answer when I ask them is: Who created God? Surely 'he' didn't just 'will' 'himself' into existance, because that's just silly...
Why not? If an omnipotent, omniscient being really exists what would stop it from acting through time and creating itself?
The question itself is nonsense. It's tantamount to asking why God can't make a round square. It's a logical impossibility.
GG
This isn't true, many aspects of physics bend or totally ignore the logical progression of time whereas being a square and being a circle are just two abstract human definitions of shape.
Oh right Some of my friends and acquaintances are pagans.
They are all really laid back about what other people believe, are not evangalistic trying to convert everyone and so was puzzled by your comment
Thanks for explaining, Rick
Wouldn't doubt there are some nut job pagans too but never met one.
metallifan wrote:You know, one thing Creationists never answer when I ask them is: Who created God? Surely 'he' didn't just 'will' 'himself' into existance, because that's just silly...
Why not? If an omnipotent, omniscient being really exists what would stop it from acting through time and creating itself?
This is a good point.
If god exists as Christians believe then he is omnipotent and thus can do whatever the hell he likes disregarding temporarily.
Also GG, I regard neopagans as far worse than Christians for pseudoscience.
We have had this discussion before..The bible doesn't say that God is Omnipotent. In fact it says that God can't lie, and that God can't sin. God created a logical world with square squares and round circles. There is no such thing as the number green. So no it was not a good point, it was nonsense.
God: God's Omnipotence
Bible study on God: omnipotence.
Rev. 19:6
The Lord God is Omnipotent.
"Omnipotent" means the state of having unlimited power. Thus, God's authority is unlimited.
Gen. 18:14
Nothing is too hard for the Lord.
Job 42:2
God can do everything.
Matt. 19:26
All things are possible with God.
Lk. 1:37
Nothing is impossible for God.
Acts 26:8
Raising the dead is not an incredible thing for God.
Eph. 1:19
God has mighty power (i.e., a superabundance of power).
Eph. 3:20
God is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think.
Eph. 6:10
We are strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Therefore, we are able to stand against the wiles of the devil by putting on the whole armor of God (Eph. 6:10-18).
generalgrog wrote:
The thing that bothers me about this thread is that people are allowed to get away with comments like "Those crazy Christians", calling creationists "slowed 3 year olds"
if someone came on here and said something like those "crazy neopagans" are at it again..mannahin would shut it right down. Or if someone dared to point out that this article is just a snippet of information that people in this thread have kneejerked and run with it.
Wait, what?
You participate in almost every religious thread that takes place here, which means you have no excuse for not remembering Fraz's tendency to lock threads that happen to irritate him for any perceived bag on Christians.
generalgrog wrote:
And yeahh believing that order and intelligence are a product of totally random unguided processes is totally more believable than to believe that a Creator designed it...yeah it's soooo much more believable....
Order and intelligence exist independently of perception?
This isn't true, many aspects of physics bend or totally ignore the logical progression of time whereas being a square and being a circle are just two abstract human definitions of shape.
generalgrog wrote: yeahh and while we are at it...lets just shut down all science that is evolution based while we are at it. I mean it's not like anyone else has a different world view than us and of course they are soo obviously wrong they have no right whatsoever to do their own research.
It's also "magic" that life spontaneously arrived in an unguided magical way.. Or that evolution "magically spedup and slowed down when it didn't go the way we thought it was supposed to, so we'll use our faith and call this magic punctuated equilibrium even though we can't prove it....yeah the evolutionist world view is the perfect and only true way to see the world.
GG
i get what you are saying, but i don't see how everyone is saying creationism is bad. they're saying (well, i'm saying anyway) they think the referenced story in the beginning
was crazy. T-rex eating coconuts is crazy. not the complete notion of creationism. i'm not convinced by either side completely. but, imho, the evolution side has more evidence
and makes more sense.
This isn't true, many aspects of physics bend or totally ignore the logical progression of time whereas being a square and being a circle are just two abstract human definitions of shape.
Prove it.
GG
Reserach relativity or quantum mechanics for the former.
You want me to prove to you that squares and circles are just human concepts of spacial arrangement? if so you are hopelessly lost.
This isn't true, many aspects of physics bend or totally ignore the logical progression of time whereas being a square and being a circle are just two abstract human definitions of shape.
Prove it.
GG
I see someone is unfamiliar with non-Euclidean geometry.
i get what you are saying, but i don't see how everyone is saying creationism is bad. they're saying (well, i'm saying anyway) they think the referenced story in the beginning
was crazy. T-rex eating coconuts is crazy. not the complete notion of creationism. i'm not convinced by either side completely. but, imho, the evolution side has more evidence
and makes more sense.
The problem with the whole article is that the coconut thing is entirely hearsay. digitaljournal said Some guide said it and its on the internet so it must be true.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:
This isn't true, many aspects of physics bend or totally ignore the logical progression of time whereas being a square and being a circle are just two abstract human definitions of shape.
Prove it.
GG
I see someone is unfamiliar with non-Euclidean geometry.
He said physics..if we are talking theoretical physics I would like to know what presupositions they have come up with to claim that there are square circles and round squares. I mean besides C.S. Lewis.
generalgrog wrote:
He said physics..if we are talking theoretical physics I would like to know what presupositions they have come up with to claim that there are square circles and round squares. I mean besides C.S. Lewis.
Uh, that is physics. General relativity depends on non-Euclidean geometry, and GPS depends on general relativity.
generalgrog wrote:
He said physics..if we are talking theoretical physics I would like to know what presupositions they have come up with to claim that there are square circles and round squares. I mean besides C.S. Lewis.
Uh, that is physics. General relativity depends on non-Euclidean geometry, and GPS depends on general relativity.
So much for proof.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
generalgrog wrote:There is no such thing as the number green. So no it was not a good point, it was nonsense.
In Euclidean geometry a triangle is a 3-sided polygon with angles totaling no more than 180 degrees.
In non-Euclidean geometry a triangle is a 3-sided polygon with angles totaling a potentially indefinite amount.
The common idea is the presence of 3 sides.
You want proof that there exist square triangles? No problem. Any given square can be modeled as a series of triangles, and therefore as a single triangle, insofar as one only takes note of 3 vertices in the course of "unpacking" the square. This is literally why the formula for the area of a triangle works.
generalgrog wrote:
Funny.
No, I didn't make the comment to be funny. I made the comment to illustrate why your statement was nonsense.
In Euclidean geometry a triangle is a 3-sided polygon with angles totaling no more than 180 degrees.
In non-Euclidean geometry a triangle is a 3-sided polygon with angles totaling a potentially indefinite amount.
The common idea is the presence of 3 sides.
You want proof that there exist square triangles? No problem. Any given square can be modeled as a series of triangles, and therefore as a single triangle, insofar as one only takes note of 3 vertices in the course of "unpacking" the square. This is literally why the formula for the area of a triangle works.
Ah, but if there is no such thing as the number green, how do we know numbers even exist?
No seriously, do number exist, or are they just a human perception.
Let's say there are five trees outside of your house.
If nobody lived there, and there was no one to count the trees, would there still be 5 of them? Does nature care what measurement of individual units we use.
What about time? Do hours and minutes really exist? Or are they just a human concept, invented to measure the sequence and duration of event?
Mike Noble wrote:Ah, but if there is no such thing as the number green, how do we know numbers even exist?
No seriously, do number exist, or are they just a human perception.
Let's say there are five trees outside of your house.
If nobody lived there, and there was no one to count the trees, would there still be 5 of them? Does nature care what measurement of individual units we use.
What about time? Do hours and minutes really exist? Or are they just a human concept, invented to measure the sequence and duration of event?
Numbers are totally human perception, we invented them and the rest of maths to allow us to quantify amounts of things.
Mike Noble wrote:What about time? Do hours and minutes really exist? Or are they just a human concept, invented to measure the sequence and duration of event?
Time. Time is an Artificial Construct. An idea based on the theory that events occur in a linear direction, at all times. Always forward, never back. Is the concept of time correct? Is time relevant?
Anyway..... The only reason I hate the Catholics near me is because I live in a small town: You know, it's full of those "I'm holier than thou because I go to church on sunday, but you do too, but that doesn't matter, because I'm holier than thou" and it's fething annoying.
And that girl I asked out called me a demon because I am not as churchly as her......
No, I didn't make the comment to be funny. I made the comment to illustrate why your statement was nonsense.
Your comment was extremely funny because you are using a mathematical measurement of color to try and say that color and numbers are the same the thing.
Slarg232 wrote:And that girl I asked out called me a demon because I am not as churchly as her......
I'm sure speaking in tongues didn't help you either. Maybe next time you need to use actions rather than words? Walk up to her and drop your pants. If that doesn't work, then she's probably too high-and-mighty to be dating the average joe.
No, I didn't make the comment to be funny. I made the comment to illustrate why your statement was nonsense.
Your comment was extremely funny because you are using a mathematical measurement of color to try and say that color and numbers are the same the thing.
Again your a very funny guy.
GG
Colour is a perception of certain frequencies/wavelengths (as c is constant this is interchangeable) of light which is a series of photons (the carriers for the electromagnetic force) and is just as abstract and meaningless as numbers and time.
generalgrog wrote:[Your comment was extremely funny because you are using a mathematical measurement of color to try and say that color and numbers are the same the thing
Well, colour is our perception of certain wavelengths of energy (which can be quantified and labeled using numbers or "words"). The interesting thing is that not everyone will perceive them the same way even if the wavelengths are the same which means that numbers are more "accurate" than "colours".
generalgrog wrote:
Your comment was extremely funny because you are using a mathematical measurement of color to try and say that color and numbers are the same the thing.
Again your a very funny guy.
No, you asked for the "number Green".
I gave it to you.
I never said they were the same thing, nor should you pretend that the presence of difference is proof of God.
generalgrog wrote:
Your comment was extremely funny because you are using a mathematical measurement of color to try and say that color and numbers are the same the thing.
Again your a very funny guy.
No, you asked for the "number Green".
I gave it to you.
I never said they were the same thing, nor should you pretend that the presence of difference is proof of God.
.
And you still failed.
The color green has no number. Yes it has a wavelength. Again.. to the people watching that might get confused by your attempt at humor, it's not he same thing. Stop playing games.
generalgrog wrote:And yeahh believing that order and intelligence are a product of totally random unguided processes is totally more believable than to believe that a Creator designed it...yeah it's soooo much more believable....
GG
The real face palm is your wilful distortion of evolutionary theory to make out that it claims that it is a 'random' process. Evolution is a much more complex and logical process than that, it isn't about random chance. To portray it as such to make any sort of debating point is either done through ignorance or an attempt to be disingenuous. I would hope the former, because you have a very narrow world view based on unnecessarily literal readings of the bible given previous discussions on things like homosexuality and the like.
If you were to weigh up things on the basis of evidence alone you'd have to conclude that even if evolutionary theory is not complete it is a lot closer to reality than a literal reading of the bible. Creationism is demonstrably wrong, we can prove the geological age of things, we know that dinosaurs and man never coexisted. It's just a sad joke to claim otherwise.
I'm a professional biologist so you will claim I will clearly side with science. But the fact remains that science does not succeed over religion due to a popularity contest, but because it stands on its own merits grounded in evidence. Evolutionary theory is constructed on the basis of well established science, it is a theory designed to best fit the facts of the natural world. Creationism largely denies the reality of this evidence claiming that the Earth isn't the age it really is or make grossly inappropriate re-interpretations of the fossil record designed to primarily fit religious readings rather than taking an approach that could be described as demonstrating good scientific practice.
For instance, the suggestion that Tyrannosaurs ever ate plants as their main diet is preposterous. To claim their razor sharp serrated teeth were used for anything other than supporting a meat diet is an absurdity. The only reason why someone with today's science would claim otherwise is to fit a plainly obvious religious agenda. Anyone with that kind of bias in their approach to science is not a scientist at all.
The color green has no number. Yes it has a wavelength. Again.. to the people watching that might get confused by your attempt at humor, it's not he same thing. Stop playing games.
Wavelength is a number.
I'm also not joking. Though it does interest me that you can only process my comments that way.
I mean, if you want to talk about number theory then I'm more than willing to do so. I'm betting that you aren't, but you're free to prove me wrong.
generalgrog wrote:And yeahh believing that order and intelligence are a product of totally random unguided processes is totally more believable than to believe that a Creator designed it...yeah it's soooo much more believable....
GG
The real face palm is your wilful distortion of evolutionary theory to make out that it claims that it is a 'random' process. Evolution is a much more complex and logical process than that, it isn't about random chance. To portray it as such to make any sort of debating point is either done through ignorance or an attempt to be disingenuous. I would hope the former, because you have a very narrow world view based on unnecessarily literal readings of the bible given previous discussions on things like homosexuality and the like.
If you were to weigh up things on the basis of evidence alone you'd have to conclude that even if evolutionary theory is not complete it is a lot closer to reality than a literal reading of the bible. Creationism is demonstrably wrong, we can prove the geological age of things, we know that dinosaurs and man never coexisted. It's just a sad joke to claim otherwise.
I'm a professional biologist so you will claim I will clearly side with science. But the fact remains that science does not succeed over religion due to a popularity contest, but because it stands on its own merits grounded in evidence. Evolutionary theory is constructed on the basis of well established science, it is a theory designed to best fit the facts of the natural world. Creationism largely denies the reality of this evidence claiming that the Earth isn't the age it really is or make grossly inappropriate re-interpretations of the fossil record designed to primarily fit religious readings rather than taking an approach that could be described as demonstrating good scientific practice.
For instance, the suggestion that Tyrannosaurs ever ate plants as their main diet is preposterous. To claim their razor sharp serrated teeth were used for anything other than eating meat is an absurdity. The only reason why someone with today's science would claim otherwise is to fit a plainly obvious religious agenda. Anyone with that kind of bias in their approach to science is not a scientist at all.
Sorry..Howard the only thing you have proven is that you believe in your set of presuppositions based on uniformitarianism. Of course there is plenty of evidence for evolution IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.
There is plenty of evidence for Creation IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.
Howard A Treesong wrote:But the fact remains that science does not succeed over religion due to a popularity contest, but because it stands on its own merits grounded in evidence.
In other words, it has utility. It grants its practitioners "powers" over the world they inhabit.
Its like those monks that can survive despite improbably hostile conditions*.
*But not really. Feynman might be a zombie, but he still can't tackle a string.
The color green has no number. Yes it has a wavelength. Again.. to the people watching that might get confused by your attempt at humor, it's not he same thing. Stop playing games.
Wavelength is a number.
I'm also not joking. Though it does interest me that you can only process my comments that way.
wavelength is not a number. There is a number that represents wavelength(not the same thing as wavelength being a number). Thats like saying if I have 5 soda cans, 5 soda cans is a number. And 5 soda cans = the number 5.
Again... I am losing confidence in your ability to think logically. I'm beginning to question your claim of being a logistician now.
Sounding intelligent is all good and well, but when what you are selling is so obviously ridiculous, polishing a turd comes to mind.
While they are at it, I would like a recreation of a pre-round-earth human settlement and a geocentric model solar system on display too, maybe a cute video of the time lapse transition for the sun to its present state in the middle of the solar system from where it was in biblical times. Maybe another video showing the geological changes that occured to make the world round today too. Hey what else you got to blow $25 million on? Creationist biology, astronomy, anthropology, geology... all the science the kids will ever need!
I would like to teach all of their kids the truth of Where the Wild Things Are too.
"But that's just a storybook!"
"yup."
generalgrog wrote:
Sorry..Howard the only thing you have proven is that you believe in your set of presuppositions based on uniformitarianism. Of course there is plenty of evidence for evolution IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.
There is plenty of evidence for Creation IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.
There are two world views at work here.
The funny thing is that you aren't arguing for mere creation, but young earth creation.
One can be a uniformitarian and believe in a divine creation, and there is plenty of evidence for the former, but none for the latter; making it a matter of preference.
However, there is no evidence for a Young Earth, at all. Moreover, the only reasonable way to prove such a thing is often the first artifact "discredited" the ilk of believers.
That still leaves my question unanswered. Just because a natural geological occurance can't yet be explained, that's evidence of creationism? I said evidence. All you're doing is throwing me a link to a site that says "SCIENCE HASN'T EXPLAINED THIS YET, SO GOD IS REAL!!!1!"
Really? Is it that easy for you folks to believe something? And I thought most of the medieval nonsense left with the belief that flies are born from rotten meat.
Someone once said that the difference between science and religion is that if something is unknown religion will claim god did it while science will say we don't know.
generalgrog wrote:
wavelength is not a number. There is a number that represents wavelength(not the same thing as wavelength being a number). Thats like saying if I have 5 soda cans, 5 soda cans is a number. And 5 soda cans = the number 5.
So what is the number 5 if not a representation of a thing?
Wavelength is a number, and 5 soda cans is the number 5. They are either the same things (this is huge favor to your argument by the way), or they are fundamentally distinct and therefore "number" is merely a matter of perception (Plato was wrong, oh so wrong).
generalgrog wrote:
Again... I am losing confidence in your ability to think logically. I'm beginning to question your claim of being a logistician now.
Also, let's look at things from a thermodynamic/biomechanical perspective...
I'm a 180lb male human. I require 3000cals a day to function (including exercise). This is nearly ten coconuts.
I'm a 20,000lbs, 18ft tall Tyrannosaurus Rex. I require (roughly) 100,000 cals a day. This is Nearly 3 thousand coconuts.
One tree will produce c. 50 coconuts at any one time. This means that a T-Rex would need to strip 60 trees a day in order to feed itself. Then move on, as those coconuts sure don't grow overnight...
Also, neither crabs nor monkeys are ten tons of bristling 6inch teeth, yet they manage to nom down the nuts with reckless abandon.
For everytime anyone ever goes to that museum, reads whatever sign says T-Rexs ate coconuts, then goes on to believe that 'fact,' I shall kill a kitten.
No, TWO kittens.
Gah.
That's a lot of kittens!
Maybe you're over looking the fact that due to *magic* the T-Rex ate coconuts. Oh wait *magic* isn't a good reason... try.. um *faith*... no arguing with that!
Seriously $25million could be spent on research for a cure to cancer. Who care who/what/how the universe was made , maybe we should focus on disease, starvation and homelessness?
yeahh and while we are at it...lets just shut down all science that is evolution based while we are at it. I mean it's not like anyone else has a different world view than us and of course they are soo obviously wrong they have no right whatsoever to do their own research.
It's also "magic" that life spontaneously arrived in an unguided magical way.. Or that evolution "magically spedup and slowed down when it didn't go the way we thought it was supposed to, so we'll use our faith and call this magic punctuated equilibrium even though we can't prove it....yeah the evolutionist world view is the perfect and only true way to see the world.
GG
The key issue a lot of users have with your viewpoint is the insistence on the literal truth of the bible.
The scientific theory of the formation of the universe and all within it in no way denies a place for God as the Creator.
It is the insistence on denying all scientific evidence, in order to make the Bishop Usher calculations work, that seems a bit strange.
Why should God constantly fiddle with reality, in effect lying to his creations, in order to make it fit the work of a mid-19th century churchman?
corpsesarefun wrote:Someone once said that the difference between science and religion is that if something is unknown religion will claim god did it while science will say we don't know.
And it's always better to admit you don't know something than to give out incorrect information.
dogma wrote:You've never been very open-minded.
It often comes with being Christian, it would seem
metallifan wrote:
And it's always better to admit you don't know something than to give out incorrect information.
Unless you want to control people.
I should explain. All religions, and most philosophies, are attempts at control. They involve prohibition, guidance, and many similar things; all of which are controlling. Indeed, claims to "good" are all about influencing the behavior of others in order to make them more appealing to a certain sentiment; regardless of whether that is divinely correct or not.
metallifan wrote:
It often comes with being Christian, it would seem
I'm a PK, so I have sympathy for Holy Mother Church and the good it does for many people. I just cannot stand the Young Earth perspective. It is one of the only things that infuriates me.
That still leaves my question unanswered. Just because a natural geological occurance can't yet be explained, that's evidence of creationism? I said evidence. All you're doing is throwing me a link to a site that says "SCIENCE HASN'T EXPLAINED THIS YET, SO GOD IS REAL!!!1!"
Really? Is it that easy for you folks to believe something? And I thought most of the medieval nonsense left with the belief that flies are born from rotten meat.
You read all of that information in 5 minutes? You just showed me that you really aren't interested in looking at anything other than what is force fed you through the school system or the science channel.
I disregarded that site as soon as it said that people who do not believe in young earth are instantaneous believers in evolution, it just screams closed mindedness.
It also fails to accept that the granite could have cooled quickly due to any number of factors.
generalgrog wrote:
You read all of that information in 5 minutes? You just showed me that you really aren't interested in looking at anything other than what is force fed you through the school system or the science channel.
Yeah, Halos shows evidence for a 2,000 year Creation (read in yon book), which still makes the Bible wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote:The key issue a lot of users have with your viewpoint is the insistence on the literal truth of the bible.
These would be the "assumptions" that somehow validate the creationist position on an equal parallel to the scientific assumptions that an evolutionary scientist makes.
But of course the assumptions that scientists make are usually well considered and themselves have a great deal of evidence on which they reside, where as GG's assumptions lie mostly in saying that the bible is both literally and factually accurate. For which there is no basis at all, because ultimately it's just a book. That's like saying that evolution is true because 'Origin of Species' says so, and Charles Darwin is unquestionably correct in all things. Well fortunately the book offers evidence support all claims, it doesn't make claims with a presumption of a divine author.
But ultimately, evolutionary theory proves nothing about the existence of god. It merely disproves creationism. It's only people that seek to make absurd claims about the geological and biological history of the Earth that feel threatened.
metallifan wrote: And it's always better to admit you don't know something than to give out incorrect information.
Unless you want to control people.
I should explain. All religions, and most philosophies, are attempts at control. They involve prohibition, guidance, and many similar things; all of which are controlling. Indeed, claims to "good" are all about influencing the behavior of others in order to make them more appealing to a certain sentiment; regardless of whether that is divinely correct or not.
Oh I fully realize that much, it's pretty out in the open, and any 8th grade social studies student can tell you all about religion's influence on politics through history. Hell, disputes over political issues are still riddled with questions of of "what would God do?" in most modern senates/Common Houses
metallifan wrote: It often comes with being Christian, it would seem
I'm a PK, so I have sympathy for Holy Mother Church and the good it does for many people. I just cannot stand the Young Earth perspective. It is one of the only things that infuriates me.
Edit: clarity.
As I said, it -often- comes with being Christian. There're plenty of good ones that dispute the creationist theory, most notably the Pope himself, but there're just too many out there that follow blindly without stopping to ask questions.
generalgrog wrote:You read all of that information in 5 minutes? You just showed me that you really aren't interested in looking at anything other than what is force fed you through the school system or the science channel.
I skimmed, as I've learned to do through University and my current job, so that I can pull key information from something without bothering with the pointless filler text. And the key information (If it can be called that) that I got from that link is nothing short of absurd. Just because there's no scientific explaination for something, religious institutions claim it's proof of god, but make no -actual- connection between the two, other than simply repeating "science has no answer! God is real!". I skipped most of that article because if I wanted a debate that idiotic, I could just visit a Sunday-school class.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
But of course the assumptions that scientists make are usually well considered and themselves have a great deal of evidence on which they reside,
In support, there are two minimal assumptions to any argument:
1: I exist, where "exist" is a word to denote my condition.
2: The state that allows my existence is perpetual in the absence of contravention.
Note that these are derivations of Newton's theorems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
metallifan wrote:
As I said, it -often- comes with being Christian. There're plenty of good ones that dispute the creationist theory, most notably the Pope himself, but there're just too many out there that follow blindly without stopping to ask questions.
I'm not trying to call you out on hating Christians, or anything so crass. It was more a statement of support.
Correct me if I am wrong, "Intelligent Design" is the notion that life, the universe, etc. is all caused by some rational superbeing's plan. This can make sense and is impossible to refute. It is the logic of God. Intelligent Design people are at odds with Evolution people from what I have understood. Creationism goes a bit further with "historical" specifics like noah and eden and such stories, or depending on your culture, how the Earth was made out of the disemboweled pancreas of a titan or floats on the back of a huge turtle or whichever story, that is all "Creationism", not just "Intelligent Design". Trying to fudge into historical fact with some bending of the rules of reality and scientific discovery something as ludicrous as a 6000 year old planet, dinosaurs on boats, and actually take yourself seriously takes a special kind of gifted.
I think the Valar made humans (and elves and dwarves) didn't they? We don't see any Elves or Dwarves any more because they all left across the sea or underground after the 3rd age, we know this because it is written. Hobbits grew taller and lived among men too and here we are today, with a completely plausible history of creation that doesn't involve coconuts. Oh yeah, and Mordor is the modern-day middle east.
metallifan wrote: As I said, it -often- comes with being Christian. There're plenty of good ones that dispute the creationist theory, most notably the Pope himself, but there're just too many out there that follow blindly without stopping to ask questions.
I'm not trying to call you out on hating Christians, or anything so crass. It was more a statement of support.
I know, I just find that it's always better to be clear rather than to leave something open for potential (mis)interpretation
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
metallifan wrote:
As I said, it -often- comes with being Christian. There're plenty of good ones that dispute the creationist theory, most notably the Pope himself, but there're just too many out there that follow blindly without stopping to ask questions.
I'm not trying to call you out on hating Christians, or anything so crass. It was more a statement of support.
I know, I just find that it's always best to be clear than to leave something open for potential (mis)interpretation
Guitardian wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, "Intelligent Design" is the notion that life, the universe, etc. is all caused by some rational superbeing's plan. This can make sense and is impossible to refute. It is the logic of God. Intelligent Design people are at odds with Evolution people from what I have understood.
Not at all. You can believe in Intelligent Design -AND- Evolution. That's exactly the current Pope's theory in fact, is that Evolution was part of God's Divine Plan, and that Creationism is a farce. Intelligent Design is simply stating that the universe was created as God wished, and that all events happen as he demands. It doesn't rule out evolution, and as previously noted, can support it. I have no issues with people that believe in Intelligent Design. I doubt the existence of God, but at least those folks -did- stop to question the bible, and grounded their theories on faith in fact rather than fiction.
Guitardian wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, "Intelligent Design" is the notion that life, the universe, etc. is all caused by some rational superbeing's plan. This can make sense and is impossible to refute. It is the logic of God. Intelligent Design people are at odds with Evolution people from what I have understood. Creationism goes a bit further with "historical" specifics like noah and eden and such stories, or depending on your culture, how the Earth was made out of the disemboweled pancreas of a titan or floats on the back of a huge turtle or whichever story, that is all "Creationism", not just "Intelligent Design". Trying to fudge into historical fact with some bending of the rules of reality and scientific discovery something as ludicrous as a 6000 year old planet, dinosaurs on boats, and actually take yourself seriously takes a special kind of gifted.
I think the Valar made humans (and elves and dwarves) didn't they? We don't see any Elves or Dwarves any more because they all left across the sea or underground after the 3rd age, we know this because it is written. Hobbits grew taller and lived among men too and here we are today, with a completely plausible history of creation that doesn't involve coconuts. Oh yeah, and Mordor is the modern-day middle east.
Intelligent Design is the theory that various biological structures are so complicated that they could not possibly have arise through evolution and therefore must have been designed and built by an intelligent creator, thus proving the existence of God. Biological systems of this type are said to display irreducible complexity.
This is presented as a scientific not a religious idea.
I think the basis of Intelligent Design is that most theories of how life began on Earth say "It just happened."
So, the idea is that there must have been some kind of creator who started the process, although to me it almost sounds like said creator would be less of a god, and more of a highly advanced alien or something. After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first.
Well, whatever. I think you will find, that if you interpret the Bible as a metaphor, rather than literally, that it actually does not deny most scientific studies. Basically, they are not incompatible. Although I do believe most Christians today agree with that anyway.
Biological systems of what type Kk? I was under the impression that nothing in biology IS irreducibly complex as far as I'm aware, things like eyes and wings have been easily explained.
Mike Noble wrote:I think the basis of Intelligent Design is that most theories of how life began on Earth say "It just happened."
So, the idea is that there must have been some kind of creator who started the process, although to me it almost sounds like said creator would be less of a god, and more of a highly advanced alien or something. After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first.
Well, whatever. I think you will find, that if you interpret the Bible as a metaphor, rather than literally, that it actually does not deny most scientific studies. Basically, they are not incompatible. Although I do believe most Christians today agree with that anyway.
Our current understanding of the big bang is that is just happened Nobody has put forward a theory with much hard proof.
I am pretty libertarian with religion in that I don't give a damn who believes what as long as they don't try to pass it off as science.
mattyrm wrote:Biological systems of what type Kk? I was under the impression that nothing in biology IS irreducibly complex as far as I'm aware, things like eyes and wings have been easily explained.
That's the challenge with the ID theory.
Examples given of irreducibly complex mechanisms, such as the Venus Fly Trap, and the bacterial rotor flagellum, have been shown from nature to have intermediate stages and therefore not be irreducibly complex under the terms of the theory.
Mike Noble wrote:I think the basis of Intelligent Design is that most theories of how life began on Earth say "It just happened."
And in a way, didn't it? Maybe not life as we know it, but certainly in the form of bacteria and other micro-organisms. If someone wants to believe a creator put a bunch of bacteria, mircoscopic spores, and other forms of sub-life on a lifeless, lava coated ball of rock that would later become earth, then I say "Why not"? It doesn't dispute the many archives of -proven- scientific evidence on how Earth came to be. It doesn't dispute that life as we know it was a process that took billions of years. It simply says that said person follows the idea that these these things came to be as a result of a higher power which they believe exists.
After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans.
Not an unreasonable belief either. Those that follow such a concept could use the supporting arguement that it took humans so long to evolve because it's part of God's plan, and that everything is working out as he intended, when he intended.
There's no reason that faith couldn't be based around science. But to ignore science in blind obedience to faith is self-destructive and close-minded.
Howard A Treesong wrote:It probably won't help people who think the Earth is only 6000 years old but I don't think Coconuts had evolved when Dinosaurs existed.
I thought the humans that rode the dinsoaurs brought the coconuts back in time after they used a time machine given to them by God?
I might be a little fuzzy on certain rhetorical aspects of this particular sect of Christianity...
Guitardian wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, "Intelligent Design" is the notion that life, the universe, etc. is all caused by some rational superbeing's plan. This can make sense and is impossible to refute. It is the logic of God. Intelligent Design people are at odds with Evolution people from what I have understood. Creationism goes a bit further with "historical" specifics like noah and eden and such stories, or depending on your culture, how the Earth was made out of the disemboweled pancreas of a titan or floats on the back of a huge turtle or whichever story, that is all "Creationism", not just "Intelligent Design". Trying to fudge into historical fact with some bending of the rules of reality and scientific discovery something as ludicrous as a 6000 year old planet, dinosaurs on boats, and actually take yourself seriously takes a special kind of gifted.
I think the Valar made humans (and elves and dwarves) didn't they? We don't see any Elves or Dwarves any more because they all left across the sea or underground after the 3rd age, we know this because it is written. Hobbits grew taller and lived among men too and here we are today, with a completely plausible history of creation that doesn't involve coconuts. Oh yeah, and Mordor is the modern-day middle east.
Intelligent Design is the theory that various biological structures are so complicated that they could not possibly have arise through evolution and therefore must have been designed and built by an intelligent creator, thus proving the existence of God. Biological systems of this type are said to display irreducible complexity.
This is presented as a scientific not a religious idea.
Okay that is what I thought. Jut wanted to make sure that "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" I was not confusing as the same thing. Intelligent Design can make sense. Creationism, again, just boggles my mind how anyone can be so willfully blinded to hard evidence and findings as to try and squeeze this crazy multi-sided polygon into the round hole.
corpsesarefun wrote:
I am pretty libertarian with religion in that I don't give a damn who believes what as long as they don't try to pass it off as science.
Guitardian wrote:Okay that is what I thought. Jut wanted to make sure that "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" I was not confusing as the same thing. Intelligent Design can make sense. Creationism, again, just boggles my mind how anyone can be so willfully blinded to hard evidence and findings as to try and squeeze this crazy multi-sided polygon into the round hole.
ID is little better than creationism and is still hugely flawed, fundamentally there is little difference, ID just appears more palatable and is a good exercise in spin, but it's still a form of creationism but without the obviously silly "young earth" ideas. For a start, there are no real examples of an irreducibly complex structure. Time and again they try to use the example of the eye, which is a nonsense.
Yeah, but why do you need to say that there are irreducibly complex biological systems just to have evidence for Intelligent design? Couldn't the explanation be what I said? That they find it improbable that life just randomly happened? That the universe just spontaneously created itself out of nothing? Sounds kind of crazy to me. I'm not denying the Theories of Evolution and the Big Bang, I'm just saying, having some kind of creator makes things more plausible IMO.
Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, but why do you need to say that there are irreducibly complex biological systems just to have evidence for Intelligent design? Couldn't the explanation be what I said? That they find it improbable that life just randomly happened? That the universe just spontaneously created itself out of nothing? Sounds kind of crazy to me. I'm not denying the Theories of Evolution and the Big Bang, I'm just saying, having some kind of creator makes things more plausible IMO.
The point of Intelligent Design is to dress up Creationism in a cloak of sciencey respectability, so that it can be taught in school science classes.
There's no reason why a Creator could not have imbued the universe with the laws required to develop all the complexity within it by the mechanisms proposed by conventional science, such as evolution, which seem to have a factual basis.
The reason for Creationism is to support the literal truth of the Bible, much of which is contradicted by conventional science.
Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, but why do you need to say that there are irreducibly complex biological systems just to have evidence for Intelligent design? Couldn't the explanation be what I said? That they find it improbable that life just randomly happened? That the universe just spontaneously created itself out of nothing? Sounds kind of crazy to me. I'm not denying the Theories of Evolution and the Big Bang, I'm just saying, having some kind of creator makes things more plausible IMO.
The point of Intelligent Design is to dress up Creationism in a cloak of sciencey respectability, so that it can be taught in school science classes.
There's no reason why a Creator could not have imbued the universe with the laws required to develop all the complexity within it by the mechanisms proposed by conventional science, such as evolution, which seem to have a factual basis.
The reason for Creationism is to support the literal truth of the Bible, much of which is contradicted by conventional science.
Exactly. Creationism is an outdated absolutist medieval belief system that was used to explain natural occurances before there was any understanding of them, while Intelligent Design is a form of speculative creationism that manages to accomodate scientific advancements in evolutionary theory. Is it 100% correct? No. Does it prove the existance of God? No. But it does certainly involve using your brain, which is more than I can say for the former theory.
Intelligent Design doesn't have to have anything to do with the bible, does it? Just saying "something created life etc" doesn't say it had to be any particular "something" like a garden of eden or an ark. Sounds kind of agnostic to me actually. So I think that's a big difference saying "it was not just chance and evolution it had a creator and a purpose behind it" is not the same as getting into stories and specifics of the creator and his goals and process as if it was history.
Maybe life was intelligently designed by the god of the Galgameks from Omicron Persiai VI, and not Earth humans at all and prophets are all just schizophrenics and the bible is a storybook? Intelligent Design people can't refute that, but Creationists can.
Slarg232 wrote:And that girl I asked out called me a demon because I am not as churchly as her......
I'm sure speaking in tongues didn't help you either. Maybe next time you need to use actions rather than words? Walk up to her and drop your pants. If that doesn't work, then she's probably too high-and-mighty to be dating the average joe.
Maybe instead of speaking in tongues I need to be speaking in tongues?
alarmingrick wrote:
Slarg232 wrote: And that girl I asked out called me a demon because I am not as churchly as her......
sure the horns didn't help either, you deamon!
god, i so know what you mean. not sure where you live, but i'm in the beltbuckle of the "Bible Belt"!
What? I like the horns! They make opening pop cans easier!
Guitardian wrote:Intelligent Design doesn't have to have anything to do with the bible, does it? Just saying "something created life etc" doesn't say it had to be any particular "something" like a garden of eden or an ark. Sounds kind of agnostic to me actually. So I think that's a big difference saying "it was not just chance and evolution it had a creator and a purpose behind it" is not the same as getting into stories and specifics of the creator and his goals and process as if it was history.
Maybe life was intelligently designed by the god of the Galgameks from Omicron Persiai VI, and not Earth humans at all and prophets are all just schizophrenics and the bible is a storybook? Intelligent Design people can't refute that, but Creationists can.
No ID doesn't need to be related to the bible however its origins are in a modified version of creationism as an attempt to make the story offered by the bible more scientifically accurate or credible thus it is seen by some to be built on foundations proved false.
Guitardian wrote:Intelligent Design doesn't have to have anything to do with the bible, does it? Just saying "something created life etc" doesn't say it had to be any particular "something" like a garden of eden or an ark. Sounds kind of agnostic to me actually. So I think that's a big difference saying "it was not just chance and evolution it had a creator and a purpose behind it" is not the same as getting into stories and specifics of the creator and his goals and process as if it was history.
Maybe life was intelligently designed by the god of the Galgameks from Omicron Persiai VI, and not Earth humans at all and prophets are all just schizophrenics and the bible is a storybook? Intelligent Design people can't refute that, but Creationists can.
Creationism is creationism regardless who which god the religion belongs too, be it Yahweh, Allah or the god of the Galgameks from Omicron Persiai VI. ID forwards the "something guided the formation of life rather than natural evolution" instead of claiming a christian god did it, this is correct - it could apply to aliens like in Stargate.
But it's plainly obvious what the application really is. They feel that by getting the suggestion of something guiding evolution as a partial victory towards promoting a creationist viewpoint. Particularly when you look at the way people try to promote ID in schools in the US. The separation of church and state can complicate things, so instead of forwarding religion in the science class they try to promote the science of ID, which supposedly isn't religious. But to ignore the fundamentals of what ID is, is to overlook a very obvious wolf in sheep's clothing.
Wow. just, wow. I don't pay attention to religion and this is why. In my head I am envisioning an arguement something like this...
the sky is purple
--that's because the light refracts differently at dusk
no sinner, it's because god is angry
--perhaps that's true, and light refracts differently through the thickness of the atmosphere at dusk
no its because you didnt kill a goat and burn it yesterday, it says right here in this book that god is angry if you dont do that
--you are correct I did not kill a goat, and light also refracts differently at dusk
so that's why the sky is purple
--that's because it is dusk
and because god is angry, right?
--i didn't say that
oh.. now look what you did! now you made the sky turn black!
--Will god be angry tomorrow?
not if I pray a lot to make up for your sins
--okay then I'll see you tomorrow
if the sun comes back... I PRAY FOR YOU THE SUN COMES BACK.. see, i'll show him it works... just wait until the sun comes up he will know i was right... mom this buy at school said that god isnt angry because he sinned...
Guitardian wrote:Maybe life was intelligently designed by the god of the Galgameks from Omicron Persiai VI, and not Earth humans at all and prophets are all just schizophrenics and the bible is a storybook? Intelligent Design people can't refute that, but Creationists can.
That's a good point. I don't mind the aliens put us here idea either. It's when they get into specifics, just like Biblical creationists, that things start seeming kooky. If a religion wants to have any credibility, it seems being as vague as possible would probably help. The more specific they get, the more it seems like the storytelling of bad fantasy fiction.
Mike Noble wrote:.... After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first....
This is one of the biggest problems I have with the attempt at combining evolution and the Bible Creation story. Not to mention the whole issue of throwing the classic problem of evil defense under the bus. It is a theological issue for sure.
By the way Intelligent design is creationism. It may be young earth or old earth but it's still creationism.
generalgrog wrote: Not to mention the whole issue of throwing the classic problem of evil defense under the bus.
If you mean the argument from sin, then no, it doesn't do that. Well, it does that if you think the Bible is inerrant, which you apparently do, but don't pretend that's the only possible interpretation.
Mike Noble wrote:.... After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first...
God moves in mysterious ways. If it happened, God had a reason for it; that you don't know the reason doesn't make it untrue.
God is outside of time (and space), 'millions of years' don't mean the same thing to God as they do to people.
Mike Noble wrote:.... After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first...
God moves in mysterious ways. If it happened, God had a reason for it; that you don't know the reason doesn't make it untrue.
God is outside of time (and space), 'millions of years' don't mean the same thing to God as they do to people.
Well that's one way to put it. I'm just saying, Intelligent Design does not have to mean God created all life. In fact, Creationism doesn't have to mean that. There are different kinds of creationism from different religion, but they mean the same thing, the believe that someone or something created life on Earth. So, whatever it was, could be anything.
Of course, then we ask, who created them? That is something I do not think we can fully comprehend.
Mike Noble wrote:Of course, then we ask, who created them? That is something I do not think we can fully comprehend.
If 'them' was God then it's a meaningless question. If God exists out of time then he has never not existed. Stephen Hawking has a similar answer regarding time before the big bang. What is south of the south pole?
I don't check the thread for a few days and man it just blew up... Crocs were most likely land lizards that found the shallow waters, swamps, and rivers unchecked sources of food. They had no higher predator to deal with, so over millions of years the evolved into what they are now.
Just like the whale was once a land mammal at one point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:God moves in mysterious ways. If it happened, God had a reason for it; that you don't know the reason doesn't make it untrue.
God is outside of time (and space), 'millions of years' don't mean the same thing to God as they do to people.
Do you believe that in our limited capacity of understanding not only very little of our own Earth, but the fact we know nothing of how the universe works, and yet you think we have the ability to define what a God wants? The holy texts of every major religion do not say that a God transcends time and space, and in fact there is zero mention of space, the universe, or anything else that has to do with science. really the fact of the matter is, that even the most modern and newest major religions, like Islam, is still borrowed from an older source, and is still old enough that there was never actually any science around to influence it's content.
The Bible itself is meant to be take literally, that is the actual meaning of it. However, people over many centuries have stopped taking it literally. Creationists believe that man was made from dirt and woman a rib from the dirt man. It is essentially believing in magic.
Intelligent design and other amalgamations of religion and science are attempts to modernize religion, as we progress as a society, and as a race of humans, it is clear to see that the Bible is mainly a bunch of collected and recycled mythologies. Whether to argue the fact if a God exists or not, is a bit different to drawing the conclusion that creationism and the Bible are both myths.
Mike Noble wrote:.... After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first...
God moves in mysterious ways. If it happened, God had a reason for it; that you don't know the reason doesn't make it untrue.
God is outside of time (and space), 'millions of years' don't mean the same thing to God as they do to people.
Well that's one way to put it. I'm just saying, Intelligent Design does not have to mean God created all life. In fact, Creationism doesn't have to mean that. There are different kinds of creationism from different religion, but they mean the same thing, the believe that someone or something created life on Earth. So, whatever it was, could be anything.
Of course, then we ask, who created them? That is something I do not think we can fully comprehend.
Creationism as we know it in the USA and UK is an extreme evangelical Christian movement based on belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and its purpose is to be included in science classes. Creationism is so far away from mainstream Christian thinking that as mentioned earlier, even the Pope does not believe in it.
Of course all religions have creation myths. That is part of the purpose of a religion. The other religions, though, do not go around trying to force their individual religious cosmology to be taught in school science classes either in their own country or in others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crom wrote:
The Bible itself is meant to be take literally, that is the actual meaning of it.
It is quite obvious that the Bible describes God as all knowing, all powerful, and that those that ever crossed him have met their doom. Those that did join him, met with great sacrifice. If God is not powerful and capable of such things, then it makes the bible less meaningful, and it makes any promise of an after life null and void.
If you did not take it literally, then it would lose a lot of it's purpose. Though, I do agree with the sentiment that one can believe and not take the Bible as literal word of God, but rather a fable. I think the Bible itself, given how old it is, and how it was created was originally meant to be taken literally.
generalgrog wrote:
By the way Intelligent design is creationism. It may be young earth or old earth but it's still creationism.
GG
Well at least there's something we agree on!
You cannot belive in ID and evolution. Evolutionary theory doesn't disprove god but it does exclude intelligent influences as a requirement to work. Evolutionary theory describes how species form through internally consistent systems like natural and sexual selection, it doesn't require a superbeing to nudge or guide it a certain way to get the result we see today. If you belive that evolution is being guided you don't believe in evolution, you have modified the theory into something else.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Evolutionary theory doesn't disprove god but it does exclude intelligent influences as a requirement to work.
Not true. Evolution can follow from an intelligent creation. Then there's Solipsism to worry about.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Evolutionary theory describes how species form through internally consistent systems like natural and sexual selection, it doesn't require a superbeing to nudge or guide it a certain way to get the result we see today. If you belive that evolution is being guided you don't believe in evolution, you have modified the theory into something else.
Not describing X does not mean incompatible with X.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Evolutionary theory doesn't disprove god but it does exclude intelligent influences as a requirement to work.
Not true. Evolution can follow from an intelligent creation. Then there's Solipsism to worry about.
Creation of life is abiogenesis not evolutionary theory.
*Maybe* god sparked the first self replicating molecules, but then again in Doctor Who Scaroth's spaceship exploding did the same for the primordial soup. Either way evolutionary theory describes the way life proceeds afterwards.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Creation of life is abiogenesis not evolutionary theory.
Yes, but you said that evolution excluded any intelligent input into the system.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Evolutionary theory doesn't disprove god but it does exclude intelligent influences as a requirement to work.
Maybe that isn't what you meant, though.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
*Maybe* god sparked the first self replicating molecules, but then again in Doctor Who Scaroth's spaceship exploding did the same for the primordial soup. Either way evolutionary theory describes the way life proceeds afterwards.
I'm happy to believe in the existence of a Supreme Being.
I'm also happy to believe in the existence of all manner of spirits, sprites, demons and fairies, even entire pantheons of greek/norse gods.
It's fair game, and often fun, to believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence.
What it isn't fair game to believe in, in my humble opinion, is something for which there is empirical evidence against...
There may be a God, he may even take interest in human affairs - he may even have sent Jesus for our sins and so on, and we're ignorant of this. We have no evidence to say otherwise.
But it's unlikely that the world was created four thousand years ago, that dinosaurs and man lived peacefully together, and that, genetically, everyone, man, animal and plant is descended from a tiny band of fugitives on board an ark. Unlikely, because there is evidence against this on many fronts.
This is all my own humble opinion. No aggression or insult intended toward anyone.
Is it worth pointing out that, according to a recent article on the BBC Website (a source I do trust) that there is growing support for the origin of life on earth being in fact extraterrestrial in nature? Something to do with the direction of helixes or some such.
Mr Mystery wrote:Is it worth pointing out that, according to a recent article on the BBC Website (a source I do trust) that there is growing support for the origin of life on earth being in fact extraterrestrial in nature? Something to do with the direction of helixes or some such.
"There are those who believe that life here began out there"
That theory has been around for a long time, however it merely displaces the problem of accounting for the origin of life into space, nor does it remove the possibility of a divine creator.
Crom wrote:Do you believe that in our limited capacity of understanding not only very little of our own Earth, but the fact we know nothing of how the universe works, and yet you think we have the ability to define what a God wants?
No quite the opposite, we as finite beings cannot know everything about an infinite being.
Crom wrote:The Bible itself is meant to be take literally, that is the actual meaning of it. However, people over many centuries have stopped taking it literally. Creationists believe that man was made from dirt and woman a rib from the dirt man. It is essentially believing in magic.
No really it is not, many of the gospels differ regarding key events. Good luck following all the laws in Leviticus. You must interpret some of the bible. The Christian has a personal relationship with God, the bible is a tool to aid that but it is not God.
Crom wrote:Intelligent design and other amalgamations of religion and science are attempts to modernize religion, as we progress as a society, and as a race of humans, it is clear to see that the Bible is mainly a bunch of collected and recycled mythologies. Whether to argue the fact if a God exists or not, is a bit different to drawing the conclusion that creationism and the Bible are both myths.
True, every word of the bible could be false but it would not diminish God.
dogma wrote:
George Spiggott wrote:What is south of the south pole?
Creationism as we know it in the USA and UK is an extreme evangelical Christian movement based on belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and its purpose is to be included in science classes. Creationism is so far away from mainstream Christian thinking that as mentioned earlier, even the Pope does not believe in it.
Completely disagree with this. Creationism is not an "extreme Christian movement". Just because the pope is an old earther doesn't make it mainstream. There are a lot of things the pope believes, that I don't agree with. That doesn't make me "extreme".
The fact is, most baptists, pentacostals, 7th day adventists are young earth creationists. That is a huge portion of the Church body. Just because you aren't COE or Roman Catholic doesn't make you "extreme".
GazzyG wrote:I'm happy to believe in the existence of a Supreme Being.
I'm also happy to believe in the existence of all manner of spirits, sprites, demons and fairies, even entire pantheons of greek/norse gods.
It's fair game, and often fun, to believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence.
What it isn't fair game to believe in, in my humble opinion, is something for which there is empirical evidence against...
There may be a God, he may even take interest in human affairs - he may even have sent Jesus for our sins and so on, and we're ignorant of this. We have no evidence to say otherwise.
But it's unlikely that the world was created four thousand years ago, that dinosaurs and man lived peacefully together, and that, genetically, everyone, man, animal and plant is descended from a tiny band of fugitives on board an ark. Unlikely, because there is evidence against this on many fronts.
This is all my own humble opinion. No aggression or insult intended toward anyone.
Very well said, these folks believe what they do in spite of evidence that says otherwise.
Creationism as we know it in the USA and UK is an extreme evangelical Christian movement based on belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and its purpose is to be included in science classes. Creationism is so far away from mainstream Christian thinking that as mentioned earlier, even the Pope does not believe in it.
Completely disagree with this. Creationism is not an "extreme Christian movement". Just because the pope is an old earther doesn't make it mainstream. There are a lot of things the pope believes, that I don't agree with. That doesn't make me "extreme".
The fact is, most baptists, pentacostals, 7th day adventists are young earth creationists. That is a huge portion of the Church body. Just because you aren't COE or Roman Catholic doesn't make you "extreme".
GG
I'm afraid I can't accept the idea that the Pope isn't mainstream.
...Did this potential trainwreck of a thread -actually- manage to remain more or less civilized, enough so that it's survived for 6 pages with no lock?
Am... Am I supposed to have faith in Humanity once more?
I can't really think of the pope as anything but 'mainstream' either. Everyone knows who the pope is, Catholic or otherwise. He has discussions with world leaders, as a mediator and advisor in world affairs (well not so much this one, but the last one did). The election after John Paul II passed was all over the news so much you had to know about it even if you are a devout follower of Thor.
The pope's stance on modern issues is a political force because, unfortunately, in countries with a substantial Catholic population what the pope says has very real political weight. No politician in the U.S. would even think of directly contradicting the wishes of the Pope for fear of losing a substantial number of Catholic voters who take what he says very seriously. This is not right. This is medieval, but it is very real.
The Catholic Church still wields political power outside the boundaries of country borders just like it did back in the middle ages. That is, even with the most benevolent of intentions, counterproductive to the advancement of the overall goal of free thinking self governing societies. So yeah that's pretty mainstream. But hey so is the Dalai Lama. Even if a religion is not the most prolific one, if it's leaders are newsworthy as often as the royals or the hollywood people, that sounds mainstream to me.
The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have anything like the power they did in the Middle Ages.
There isn't a single country in the western world that does not permit contraception. Legal abortion is also pretty widely available, even in predominantly Roman Catholic countries such as Mexico. Both these are against Roman Catholic doctrine.
The recent child sex scandals have dealt the Church a serious blow to prestige and moral authority among members.
The fact of the matter is that GG knows he has a belief system held by a very small percentage of Christians, but like always he is putting his fingers in his ears, just like when people tell him that evolution is as much of a fact as anything in Science.
Its not my opinion, its a fact. Most Christians arent Creationists. Even in America, the most aggressively Creationist nation of any first world country, has only about 30% of people who are young earthers, and in Europe they number far far less as well.
Mr Mystery wrote:Is it worth pointing out that, according to a recent article on the BBC Website (a source I do trust) that there is growing support for the origin of life on earth being in fact extraterrestrial in nature? Something to do with the direction of helixes or some such.
Well it is possible, or at least that the essential building blocks for life arrived from elsewhere. But that only means it evolved somewhere and arrived here and evolved further.
What it could mean is that there is greater potential for more life on other worlds, even if they share a common galactic point of origin.
Mr Mystery wrote:Is it worth pointing out that, according to a recent article on the BBC Website (a source I do trust) that there is growing support for the origin of life on earth being in fact extraterrestrial in nature? Something to do with the direction of helixes or some such.
Well it is possible, or at least that the essential building blocks for life arrived from elsewhere. But that only means it evolved somewhere and arrived here and evolved further.
What it could mean is that there is greater potential for more life on other worlds, even if they share a common galactic point of origin.
I'd love to see life on other worlds.
It always amuses me that some people opine 'yeah, there may be life out there, but probably not intelligent.'
Who are we to say that we're not 'late-bloomers' and that, in fact, there's plenty of life out there that's far more advanced than us.
Aah... the future is exciting. Anyway, I digress...
Mr Mystery wrote:Is it worth pointing out that, according to a recent article on the BBC Website (a source I do trust) that there is growing support for the origin of life on earth being in fact extraterrestrial in nature? Something to do with the direction of helixes or some such.
Well it is possible, or at least that the essential building blocks for life arrived from elsewhere. But that only means it evolved somewhere and arrived here and evolved further.
What it could mean is that there is greater potential for more life on other worlds, even if they share a common galactic point of origin.
I'd love to see life on other worlds.
It always amuses me that some people opine 'yeah, there may be life out there, but probably not intelligent.'
Who are we to say that we're not 'late-bloomers' and that, in fact, there's plenty of life out there that's far more advanced than us.
Aah... the future is exciting. Anyway, I digress...
I think the real problem is not the underlying probability of life occurring elsewhere but of the massive convenience of them existing at the same moment in time as us (after all humanity is a blink in the age of the universe) and the impracticality of being able to contact with them.
mattyrm wrote:The fact of the matter is that GG knows he has a belief system held by a very small percentage of Christians, but like always he is putting his fingers in his ears, just like when people tell him that evolution is as much of a fact as anything in Science.
Its not my opinion, its a fact. Most Christians arent Creationists. Even in America, the most aggressively Creationist nation of any first world country, has only about 30% of people who are young earthers, and in Europe they number far far less as well.
Most Christians are not Creationists. Accept it.
Actually, by the definition of Creation, then all Christians are Creationists. However, you are correct that they are not all young earthers.
Creationism =/=Young Earth Creationism.
And yes, I know at this point I'm simply arguing semantics.
Also, outside of the US, and UK I think too, most Christians are not young earth creationist.
As for the ID argument. We like to think that extraterrestrial beings are always far more advance than us. They could be. They could be less advanced. For all we know, they may be extinct now.
generalgrog wrote:
The fact is, most baptists, pentacostals, 7th day adventists are young earth creationists. That is a huge portion of the Church body. Just because you aren't COE or Roman Catholic doesn't make you "extreme".
No, what makes Young Earth Creationism extreme is its tendency to ignore all physical evidence.
Kilkrazy wrote:There are few Young Earth Creationists in the UK, certainly fewer than the USA, per capita.
My old church was.
My old church wasn't.
These are pieces of anecdotal evidence which are of no value in answering the question of what proportion of the population of a country believes in Young Earth Creationism.
Kilkrazy wrote:There are few Young Earth Creationists in the UK, certainly fewer than the USA, per capita.
My old church was.
My old church wasn't.
These are pieces of anecdotal evidence which are of no value in answering the question of what proportion of the population of a country believes in Young Earth Creationism.
Indeed they are of no value in answering that question.
However, I was sharing the fact that my old church was.
Yeah sorry Mike I did of course mean young earth Creationists.
There are numerous sources for this information, I just really cant be bothered looking for them at the moment because I am in the middle of a film with the missus.
Off the top of my head, about 80% of Europeans are aware that evolution is a fact, I think the Americans were about the same as Turkey, at about 38% last time I checked, but baring in mind most Turks who believe this are Muslims and I said "Young earth Christians"
Plus the survey i read merely asked the question "do you believe that humans evolved from other animals" not the actual Religion of the person being questioned. Im sure many were Jews/Muslims/not so well educated people in general.
Im willing to bet its about 8-10% of European Christians and about 25-30% of American Christians. As i said, its obviously a minority. The church of England certainly doesnt believe it, neither does the Catholic church.
Kilkrazy wrote:There are few Young Earth Creationists in the UK, certainly fewer than the USA, per capita.
My old church was.
My old church wasn't.
These are pieces of anecdotal evidence which are of no value in answering the question of what proportion of the population of a country believes in Young Earth Creationism.
Indeed they are of no value in answering that question.
However, I was sharing the fact that my old church was.
Very sorry if it riled you. I do beg your pardon.
Least said, soonest mended.
Let's get back to the topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Yeah sorry Mike I did of course mean young earth Creationists.
There are numerous sources for this information, I just really cant be bothered looking for them at the moment because I am in the middle of a film with the missus.
Off the top of my head, about 80% of Europeans are aware that evolution is a fact, I think the Americans were about the same as Turkey, at about 38% last time I checked, but baring in mind most Turks who believe this are Muslims and I said "Young earth Christians"
Plus the survey i read merely asked the question "do you believe that humans evolved from other animals" not the actual Religion of the person being questioned. Im sure many were Jews/Muslims/not so well educated people in general.
Im willing to bet its about 8-10% of European Christians and about 25-30% of American Christians. As i said, its obviously a minority. The church of England certainly doesnt believe it, neither does the Catholic church.
I haven't read this thread, as yet. My comment is therefore on the OP only.
Some creationists like to believe that dinosaurs are demons; I take this as being something along the lines of: The demons were smote by God or an army of angels, during Lucifers rebellion and were buried where they fell. It also has a semblance of internal consistency as the fall of Lucifer predated the story of Adam and it would account for the big teeth and scary skulls we find.
Now I am not buying that, neither is just about every Christian (or Jew) I have ever met. But at least it has a consistency to it. I can even see scriptures to support the possibility such as the demons being released from their prison beneath the earth in Revelations.
However veggie T-Rex in 4004 BC? Sorry that's too much for my limited faith.
Monster Rain wrote:Y'ever get the feeling that maybe the Christian factions that are arguing about this sort of thing have kind of lost sight of the real point?
metallifan wrote:There's no reason that faith couldn't be based around science. But to ignore science in blind obedience to faith is self-destructive and close-minded.
Definitely. To take every scientific finding about the world and run it through a narrow filter of young earth creationism before accepting it, or else inventing some nonsensical rejection is bound to really limit one's understanding of the world.
But you know, that's their choice, they have the right to be wrong, they even have the right to be ridiculous. It's their faith. But the greater problem comes from the disingenuous attacks on science, constantly spammed they are each disprovable or able to placed in a context that makes the original charge false, but they can be invented and repeated faster than we can respond to each. The problem isn't that most folk who hear this spamming will become young earth creationists, the problem is that many listeners come away with an idea that science is just a set of assumptions, or just another suggestion of how things operate.
That's a really dangerous idea, that science and reason is placed on the same level as anyone's opinion. It's a position that can turn capable people into idiots. It's a problem that the nonsense machine of young earth creationism isn't wholly responsible for, but they certainly play their part.
It's a serious problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, but why do you need to say that there are irreducibly complex biological systems just to have evidence for Intelligent design? Couldn't the explanation be what I said? That they find it improbable that life just randomly happened? That the universe just spontaneously created itself out of nothing? Sounds kind of crazy to me. I'm not denying the Theories of Evolution and the Big Bang, I'm just saying, having some kind of creator makes things more plausible IMO.
But science doesn't just say 'life just randomly happened'. There is an immense amount of study into the formation of early life, with a range of likely early stages, that has been examined and re-examined.
This is the thing people really have to get - science is not just an opinion. It's ideas are constantly checked and rechecked against our findings in the natural world. The scientific theories that not only align themselves with what we've discovered, but go on the predict future findings are the ones we embrace.
We aren't expected to keep up to date with every scientific development, but I really think we ought to be expected to appreciate that scientific theory has a lot of study behind it, to the point where we really aren't entitled to say 'oh that one word description of a thing doesn't seem very plausible'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:Intelligent Design doesn't have to have anything to do with the bible, does it? Just saying "something created life etc" doesn't say it had to be any particular "something" like a garden of eden or an ark. Sounds kind of agnostic to me actually. So I think that's a big difference saying "it was not just chance and evolution it had a creator and a purpose behind it" is not the same as getting into stories and specifics of the creator and his goals and process as if it was history.
No, taken in isolation there's nothing inherently religious about it. But once you consider the origin of the idea it becomes clear exactly what it is. It was formed by Christian groups who lost the battle to have creationism taught in school alongside evolution, so they rebranded their efforts as intelligent design to have a second crack.
When this nonsense was taken to court their was evidence shown of copy and paste being used in intelligent design documents, where they just went through their old creation documents and replaced 'creation' with 'intelligent design'. Seriously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:Completely disagree with this. Creationism is not an "extreme Christian movement". Just because the pope is an old earther doesn't make it mainstream. There are a lot of things the pope believes, that I don't agree with. That doesn't make me "extreme".
The fact is, most baptists, pentacostals, 7th day adventists are young earth creationists. That is a huge portion of the Church body. Just because you aren't COE or Roman Catholic doesn't make you "extreme".
GG
Extremism has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with the nature of the belief. Believing in something despite the wealth of directly contradicting scientific evidence is a form of extreme belief.
Sebster has summed up the matter perfectly. It may not be obvious thanks to my belligerent manner, but I have no problem at all with your average believer, I even have a genuine affection for the c of e as I was raised in said religion, and I respect it for that reason. I was free to question, free to ask, and free to leave it when I grew up and understood it all!
If all believers practiced the more sensible and nuanced version like most British Christians I wouldn't complain about it. What I care about is extremists that refuse to listen to reason. I firmly believe that Creationists and devout Muslims are especially dangerous, the former because they actively discourage learning and science, the latter should be increasingly obvious in this day and age, and also, death for apostasy?!
sebster wrote:
But the greater problem comes from the disingenuous attacks on science, constantly spammed they are each disprovable or able to placed in a context that makes the original charge false, but they can be invented and repeated faster than we can respond to each. The problem isn't that most folk who hear this spamming will become young earth creationists, the problem is that many listeners come away with an idea that science is just a set of assumptions, or just another suggestion of how things operate.
That's a really dangerous idea, that science and reason is placed on the same level as anyone's opinion. It's a position that can turn capable people into idiots. It's a problem that the nonsense machine of young earth creationism isn't wholly responsible for, but they certainly play their part.
It's a serious problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
You can take that and replace it with any dogma. I hear it enough from atheists actually, I also hear it here.
Do not assume that this methodology is a tool of young earth creationists, its a propaganda technique which is inherently neutral and it is used by many.
sebster wrote:
This is the thing people really have to get - science is not just an opinion. It's ideas are constantly checked and rechecked against our findings in the natural world. The scientific theories that not only align themselves with what we've discovered, but go on the predict future findings are the ones we embrace.
Mostly true, however you fall into the pitfall of thinking there is orthodoxy in science, wheras that only applies to scientiifc law.
In science opinions abound because the esswential failings that you correctly see in religious nutjobs is often not seen in the scientific community.
Case in point watch any decent science program, by that I mean BBC or equivalent not Discovery channel, you will see time and again new theories proposed by someone that receive reactionary view because they tread on the pet theories of other thinkers. I have seen this time and again in medicine, physics, archeology, grogpahy and clijmatology anthorpology any 'ology you can care to mention really.
sebster wrote:
We aren't expected to keep up to date with every scientific development, but I really think we ought to be expected to appreciate that scientific theory has a lot of study behind it, to the point where we really aren't entitled to say 'oh that one word description of a thing doesn't seem very plausible'.
Guitardian wrote:Intelligent Design doesn't have to have anything to do with the bible, does it? Just saying "something created life etc" doesn't say it had to be any particular "something" like a garden of eden or an ark. Sounds kind of agnostic to me actually. So I think that's a big difference saying "it was not just chance and evolution it had a creator and a purpose behind it" is not the same as getting into stories and specifics of the creator and his goals and process as if it was history.
No, taken in isolation there's nothing inherently religious about it. But once you consider the origin of the idea it becomes clear exactly what it is. It was formed by Christian groups who lost the battle to have creationism taught in school alongside evolution, so they rebranded their efforts as intelligent design to have a second crack.
A rather twisted viewpoint there. Intelligent design doesn't really exist, its just a catchword to a non-literalist view of creationism and is as old as evolutionary theory. It is definately Biblical, but it works on the time proven principle within scripture that scripture itself should not be taken as absolutely literally. After all Jesus did not become the 'conquering Lion of Judah' which from a literalist point of view would mean a war leader. Remaining Biblical literalists understand that, because the literalists were proven wrong by Jesuis himself when he refused to kick the Romans out of Palestine. However they dont accept other non-literalist interpretations, which is contradictory as the precedent to do so is as old as Christianity.
Christians and Jews have known for a very long time that there is a lot 'wrong' with the Book of Genesis, discussions on such topics as how Caine got his wife when he Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet have been discussed for millenia. Some stories are metaphorical and are transparently so. The Bible says in plain text 'that to God a thousand years is like a day and a day a thousand years'. So at a minimum the six days of creation might mean six thousand years, not enough by far but a 'thousand' in Hebrew also means a 'lot', not necessarily ten hundreds. As for evening and morning, to an ever present God would that not be simultaneous?
There is a myth that there was a 'victory' of science over religion on creationism. None on fact exists the victory was over Biblical literalism, which of itself is not defendable in scripture. Creationism is still out there, itself sometimes called intelligent design for political reasons and because as seen here a lot of agitators like to put words into the mouths of the Christian community. If someone says they are a creationist it is assumed, often accompanied with much derision, that that means a 'young earther'.
sebster wrote:
When this nonsense was taken to court their was evidence shown of copy and paste being used in intelligent design documents, where they just went through their old creation documents and replaced 'creation' with 'intelligent design'. Seriously.
Why would some feel the need to do this? As you said its just a name change, perhaps it is to prevent discrimination.
generalgrog wrote:
The fact is, most baptists, pentacostals, 7th day adventists are young earth creationists. That is a huge portion of the Church body. Just because you aren't COE or Roman Catholic doesn't make you "extreme".
GG
Sorry grog, very few Christians are young earthers. Seventh Day adventism is the only denomination that keeps this as a doctrine, and even they ignore it fopr the most paert. People go to a seventh day adventist church because their parents went to it et al, there aren't many left, its just a community church thats all.
sebster wrote:
Extremism has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with the nature of the belief. Believing in something despite the wealth of directly contradicting scientific evidence is a form of extreme belief.
This is correct but here you are being unfair, evidence to point out extremism need not be scientific, nor must extremism be unscientific to begin with. Atheism as practiced by the Soviet Union was 'scientific' in its approach.
Too many people have fallen for the dogma that 'religion' is dogmatic and 'science' is not, not only is it highly ironic, its also quite dangerous.
There are a lot of radicals with a hate on for religious people thinly covered with a stolen labcoat and packaged as reason, and their excuse is normally based on this. Yers closed eyed relgious fundemantalists certainly exist, and they are not only an enbarassment but also a threat, however extremism and dogma are human failings found in any group, discpline or community.
Orlanth wrote:You can take that and replace it with any dogma. I hear it enough from atheists actually, I also hear it here.
Do not assume that this methodology is a tool of young earth creationists, its a propaganda technique which is inherently neutral and it is used by many.
Absolutely, there's also plenty of atheists and all kinds of other folk following their own kinds of dogma. But they don't have websites claiming half truth nonsense about science like many young earthers do.
Mostly true, however you fall into the pitfall of thinking there is orthodoxy in science, wheras that only applies to scientiifc law.
In science opinions abound because the esswential failings that you correctly see in religious nutjobs is often not seen in the scientific community.
Absolutely. The mistake people make is in seeing that level of debate, typically at a high level, and thinking that we have the knowledge to pick a side in the debate because we saw a Discovery channel special one time, or because some guy on some website made an argument that sounded reasonable.
People need to respect the professional knowledge of others. And this means when the overwhelming majority of a profession agree on some basic idea like evolution, we need to acknowledge that.
A rather twisted viewpoint there. Intelligent design doesn't really exist, its just a catchword to a non-literalist view of creationism and is as old as evolutionary theory.
As a concept it's as old as anything, but as part of the political debate going on right now in the US the term sees it's origins in the late 80s and early 90s.
There is a myth that there was a 'victory' of science over religion on creationism. None on fact exists the victory was over Biblical literalism, which of itself is not defendable in scripture. Creationism is still out there, itself sometimes called intelligent design for political reasons and because as seen here a lot of agitators like to put words into the mouths of the Christian community. If someone says they are a creationist it is assumed, often accompanied with much derision, that that means a 'young earther'.
Oh, absolutely. Though the victory has never carried through into the court of pulic opinion, where the literalists still hold incredible sway and evolution is still rejected or doubted by a majority of Americans. Elsewhere in the developed world the situation isn't as bad, but is still serious.
Why would some feel the need to do this? As you said its just a name change, perhaps it is to prevent discrimination.
No, it was a name change to step around the defeat of the creationists in Edwards v Aguillard in 1988. A Louisiana law had been passed that would have seen creation science taught alongside evolution in science class. It was found unconstitutional because the law specifically favoured one religion over any others.
In the wake of this case the creation scientists rebranded themselves as proponents of intelligent design. The court in Kitzmiller v Dover Area School in 2005 found conclusive evidence of this.
This is correct but here you are being unfair, evidence to point out extremism need not be scientific, nor must extremism be unscientific to begin with. Atheism as practiced by the Soviet Union was 'scientific' in its approach.
Sure, the Soviets were also extremists, and believed in science. My point in rejecting science made one an extremist didn't mean extremism was limited to the rejection of science, abandoning individual rights for the sake of the overall benefit of the socialist state would be another form of extremism.
Albatross wrote:No he isn't. He's just an individual who knows how to sound smart in order to impress credulous people that are lacking in intellectual curiosity. It's pseudoscience.
What? Not even quasi-science?
Medium of Death wrote:Wanting to know the scale of the Ark they built as well as it's size.
Dinosaurs and people, living together in harmony? What nonsense.
As for proof:
It's sedimentary, my dear Watson.
In recorded history, there are nurmerous 'great floods' which could be attributed to this. Also, remembering that the Bible is not an accurate history of the entire world, simply the corner where Christianity existed... so not all animals were required aboard the Ark... just those in the immediate vicinity...
Oh, and its basically hearsay...
metallifan wrote:
generalgrog wrote:There is plenty of evidence for Creation IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.
Exactly what evidence does Creationism have going for it? A strong belief that faith trumps reason isn't exactly evidence.
Point.
dogma wrote: All religions, and most philosophies, are attempts at control. They involve prohibition, guidance, and many similar things; all of which are controlling. Indeed, claims to "good" are all about influencing the behavior of others in order to make them more appealing to a certain sentiment; regardless of whether that is divinely correct or not.
Gonna sig this.
I still cannot believe there was not much play on this quote from the article...
"The guide says that in Genesis 1:30 God gives “green herb” to every creature to eat and so there are no predators."
All religions are recycled mythologies that follow some basic same stories and have common themes and archetypes. The great floods trace back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, and have been mentioned in countless religious texts. Horus (from ancient Egypt) is an exact parallel to Jesus Christ. Other common themes have been repeated, like the half man half god concept. Look at Hercules. Born from a god and a woman, and was on Earth to help benefit mankind. Some believe that a sun god and the son of a god also share a common theme but based on interpretation. Many languages have lived and died over our existence and "son" and "sun" have been thought to be changed in translations and concept.
Noah, lived to be 900 years old. Was told to grab two of every animal that made it to the Ark, and that the animals would kneel before (Zod, sorry couldn't resist) before him to show their penance towards God. So, these animals gave up instincts for conscious thought, and the animals that did not abide consciously made a decision to self destruct. Some creationists would have you believe that we are de-evolving. That we used to live longer, and be smarter. That things grew larger because they lived longer, and that since we are being punished we are becoming dumber and living a shorter life span. This is due to the fact that Noah lived to be 900 years old.
Just look at this gem
The saddest part, is that these charlatans actually make money off of this crap. I wonder how they can sleep at night?
metallifan wrote:I thought it was previously agreed upon long ago that Peanut Butter was proof of the existence of God, or at least one very, very wise man.
I suppose Coconut can be Peanut Butter's distant cousin that rarely visits, but always has a good time when he does.
There are countless things that are proof of the existence of God. Here are but a few.
*Peanut Butter
*Jessica Alba
*Queso
*Cancun
*the Porsche 928
There are also proofs that God is a jokester:
*Weiner Dogs
*Their aquatic counsins - Otters
*Louisiana
metallifan wrote:I thought it was previously agreed upon long ago that Peanut Butter was proof of the existence of God, or at least one very, very wise man.
I suppose Coconut can be Peanut Butter's distant cousin that rarely visits, but always has a good time when he does.
There are countless things that are proof of the existence of God. Here are but a few.
*Peanut Butter
*Jessica Alba
*Queso
*Cancun
*the Porsche 928
There are also proofs that God is a jokester:
*Weiner Dogs
*Their aquatic counsins - Otters
*Louisiana
Louisiana? ..Hmph...and here I was thinking that Texas was Gods great practical joke on the rest of the States.
metallifan wrote:I thought it was previously agreed upon long ago that Peanut Butter was proof of the existence of God, or at least one very, very wise man.
I suppose Coconut can be Peanut Butter's distant cousin that rarely visits, but always has a good time when he does.
There are countless things that are proof of the existence of God. Here are but a few.
*Peanut Butter
*Jessica Alba
*Queso
*Cancun
*the Porsche 928
There are also proofs that God is a jokester:
*Weiner Dogs
*Their aquatic counsins - Otters
*Louisiana
Louisiana? ..Hmph...and here I was thinking that Texas was Gods great practical joke on the rest of the States.
FITZZ wrote: Driving in Texas..or..How I discovered that Turn signals,speed limits and paying attention are simply "Suggestions" in the Lone Star State.
Don't forget "curbs are merely guidelines." (actual quote)
mattyrm wrote:Sebster has summed up the matter perfectly. It may not be obvious thanks to my belligerent manner, but I have no problem at all with your average believer, I even have a genuine affection for the c of e as I was raised in said religion, and I respect it for that reason. I was free to question, free to ask, and free to leave it when I grew up and understood it all!
If all believers practiced the more sensible and nuanced version like most British Christians I wouldn't complain about it. What I care about is extremists that refuse to listen to reason. I firmly believe that Creationists and devout Muslims are especially dangerous, the former because they actively discourage learning and science, the latter should be increasingly obvious in this day and age, and also, death for apostasy?!
Seriously. That's fethed up.
No one doubts that religious fundementals are a dangerous breed.
FITZZ wrote: Driving in Texas..or..How I discovered that Turn signals,speed limits and paying attention are simply "Suggestions" in the Lone Star State.
Don't forget "curbs are merely guidelines." (actual quote)
I've driven through Texas on several occasions (Back and Forth to California) and actually lived in Houston for a brief period and honestly have to say that with the exception of Atlanta,I've never encountered a larger amount of people who just don't know how to drive.
Driving in Texas actually made feel as though my head was coconut in the jaws of a T-Rex.
generalgrog wrote:Interesting...now show me where gentries scientific journal reports have been refuted in a scientific journal instead of some internet website.
GG
The first link mentions the work of Wakefield in 88 showing that at least some of the samples used by Gentry were not granite. Which demonstrates Gentry's lack of awareness of geological issues, which is a problem when as a physicist he's working in a geological field. Meanwhile Collins shows that Gentry is only able to identify Polonium haloes consistant with certain types of Uranium decay, and not others, indicating that it likely has nothing to do with alpha particles.
But that's almost certainly not good enough for you, because your mind is made up.
You never responded to me about the reference I gave you on Hitler's Table Talk, by the way.
metallifan wrote:I thought it was previously agreed upon long ago that Peanut Butter was proof of the existence of God, or at least one very, very wise man.
I suppose Coconut can be Peanut Butter's distant cousin that rarely visits, but always has a good time when he does.
There are countless things that are proof of the existence of God. Here are but a few.
*Weiner Dogs
*Their aquatic counsins - Otters
*Louisiana
There are also proofs that God is a jokester:
*Peanut Butter
*Jessica Alba
*Queso
*Cancun
*the Porsche 928
generalgrog wrote:Interesting...now show me where gentries scientific journal reports have been refuted in a scientific journal instead of some internet website.
GG
The first link mentions the work of Wakefield in 88 showing that at least some of the samples used by Gentry were not granite. Which demonstrates Gentry's lack of awareness of geological issues, which is a problem when as a physicist he's working in a geological field. Meanwhile Collins shows that Gentry is only able to identify Polonium haloes consistant with certain types of Uranium decay, and not others, indicating that it likely has nothing to do with alpha particles.
But that's almost certainly not good enough for you, because your mind is made up.
Thanks sebbie. Both links contain links upon links to other published articles that say exactly what they are saying in the forum. They are merely discussing them and pointing out the relevant passages. It's like YMDC for science!
EMBEDDING VIDEOS OR IMAGES CONTAINING PROFANITY IS A VIOLATION OF FORUM RULES. LINKING IS FINE, IF A NSFW LABEL IS APPLIED. -The Mgmt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZcztxRquo
Coconuts...really...thats was the best that they could come up with? Talk about Fail, in fact thats an Epic Fail with no chance of it becomming a Win.
frgsinwntr wrote:ALSO. I'm curious... what argument do you have for creationism? The Bible isn't an argument btw... We need physical evidence... which we can test.
I'm afraid then when someone thinks the bible is the literal word of God they don't require any further evidence be given.
The larger point is, I don't think proving the world was created by God is going to win people over to Salvation. I know that Jesus certainly didn't mention it when he gave the Great Commission. I think he talked more about loving everyone and being excellent to each other. I think more Christians should work on that.
I liked one of the comments on the youtube page for that family guy thing.
something like "atheism is a religion that there is no god" is like saying "not playing football is a sport".
That's kind of a good point, because as being raised with no religion whatsoever, I am hardly a devout practicing atheist, I simply don't care. I have in the past been in debates which could be considered intellectual if not for the fact that they were with religious people, where I am accused of having an unprovable belief too (as if this justifies theeir unprovable belief). I had always thought that simply not having a belief (other than "I don't know and god is not my problem until you make it my problem") would take me out of the arena. But apparently inventing the sport makes everybody in the game whether they know it or not, and some of us just don't know the rules of the game invented around us enough to play it well according to the rules of others. I don't play football, and I don't play make-believe either, so I can't have a 0 score because I don't believe the scores matter either. I wish I had thought of that analogy when I had to retort the raging unwanted street preacher calling my GF a slut while we were walking through Pioneer Square a couple years ago.
Oh, heard another argument as to why there are no Dinosaurs anymore....
Apparently, once upon a time there was a lot more oxygen (actually true) in the atmosphere. As such, Dinosaurs required simpler respiratory systems (also true, as far as I understand). Then, it all goes a bit loopy. Apparently, Dinosaur nostrils were no bigger than our own (erm...demonstratably false) and due to the lack of oxygen, they had to breather harder and faster (whaaaa?) leading to friction in the nostrils, causing....spontaneous combustion. Hence why there are no dinosaurs, but stories of fire breathing science....
Mmmmm....psuedoscience!
And yes, it was a Creationist. Video is up on youtube somewhere.
Guitardian wrote:
something like "atheism is a religion that there is no god" is like saying "not playing football is a sport".
That's kind of a good point, because as being raised with no religion whatsoever, I am hardly a devout practicing atheist, I simply don't care.
If that is the care then don't care. Don't mention it, let it slip by. I have a non interest in football, expressed by a non-interest, got a football thread, I ignore it. Don't care to the point that I don't know who these big players are or where they play or what they are doing.
However you analogy might hold more sense if so many people didn't regularly turn up for a not-football match and kick off.
Dont deceive yourself, this is far from the first time you have made your religious choices heard on Dakka. Type away! Just dont make out you have no opinion, unless you were consistently posting in your sleep.
The point is that, if not for other people's religious beliefs, I wouldn't have to live in a world where I had to take a non-stance in the first place.
If I say "There is no Grooblesnitz" and someone says "yeah, probably not I've never heard of it either" then we're all off the hook.
If I keep hearing about God, though, I am forced by its existance (not God, but discussions about god) to have a stance of having no stance. The difference between that and football is that people don't rationalize their morality around football. If you don't care for football you can not bother with the game. If you don't care about god however, it is still everywhere around you forcing itself on you through political decisions, laws stemming from puritanical taboos, and the fact that I may still pay property taxes because not enough people believe in my giant killer whale with ouija board theory to make me legitimate.
frgsinwntr wrote:ALSO. I'm curious... what argument do you have for creationism? The Bible isn't an argument btw... We need physical evidence... which we can test.
I'm afraid then when someone thinks the bible is the literal word of God they don't require any further evidence be given.
Not really a fair comment that. Some think that way, very few I find, and they are easy to spot. Looking for evidence is not only acceptable its encouraged, on a personal level it is known as testimony. It can also branch into the sciences a lot of archeological work in the Middle East is religious based, and a lot of what they find supports scripture. Do not make the base assumption that just because someone has 'got religion' they have no need to think or look for answers, it just is not so.
Monster Rain wrote:
The larger point is, I don't think proving the world was created by God is going to win people over to Salvation. I know that Jesus certainly didn't mention it when he gave the Great Commission. I think he talked more about loving everyone and being excellent to each other. I think more Christians should work on that.
This is true, but requires a little bit of clarification: The real goal is to reveal the concept of Jesus as saviour via His death on the cross as a scapegoat for the crimes of man and subsequent resurrection due to His personal innocence, wherupon the lawful not-guilty verdict is passed onto anyone who accepts it. Preaching this message known as salvation by grace is the Great Commission.
The loving people bit is something that comes naturally from the Holy Spirit and is not actually the Great Commission itself but a side effect. Done correctly it works, done incorrectly, well - we have all seen the result.
The reason we discuss evolution is not any fixation on the subject on the part of the church, but a need to defend against attack.
The dogma that 'evolution disproves God' is still very prevalent, I find I am playing whack-a-mole with it every couple of months or so. The Family Guy clip is evident of that, see how the 'churches' alternative to evolution is depicted : hardline young earthism. Yes the clip has comic licence but the message remains and is all too often the only one seen. Too many God-haters like to imply 'science say this and the church says that' placing evolution apparently in their court and making blanket claims on what others believe based on a small minority.
Its also interesting that this always comes to the foot of the Christian church, and not the Moslems or Jews who also consider Genesis sacred. It has not escaped my attention that some of those taking an atheistic point of view in supposed 'atheism vs theism' arguments, with the theism being attacked being identifiably Christianity, and some of the 'atheists' revealing themselves as Buddhists on other threads.
If you want to see a different side ask a different question.
I don't think the theism in question is necessarily Christianity, Orlanth, it is the notion in the first place that gets challenged by unbelievers. I don't hink it is believing that Christianity is necessarily wrong from most Atheist perspectives, just that none of them make any sense and all of them are wrong, human creations, human stories, not a word of a god.
It so happens that (at least in the society I grew up around) Christianity happens to be the prevalent and most visible one and maybe that is why you don't see as many challenges to muslim views, because they aren't as prevalent, and they get attacked enough anyway for the douchebaggery that is sharia law, jihad, and all that. You also don't see as many attacks against jews, maybe because it is taboo, just let them be (in the case of the NYC hassidic community) or insular and don't want anything to do with us either. Christianity jumps out at people actively, and as such, it gets the to be the scapegoat target of unbelievers crying "nonsense!"
Guitardian wrote:I don't think the theism in question is necessarily Christianity, Orlanth, it is the notion in the first place that gets challenged by unbelievers.
True, the nail that sticks out furthest gets the hammer.
It doesnt get taken to the Jews door partly because Judaism is insular but also because anti-Semitic is a nasty label, no-one has too many problems being anti-Christian.
Guitardian wrote:I don't think the theism in question is necessarily Christianity, Orlanth, it is the notion in the first place that gets challenged by unbelievers.
True, the nail that sticks out furthest gets the hammer.
It doesnt get taken to the Jews door partly because Judaism is insular but also because anti-Semitic is a nasty label, no-one has too many problems being anti-Christian.
I like Christians, some of them, one of my best friends is a pastor in Portland and a very wise old man I have known for a long time. Despite being an ordained minister, leader of a church congregation, and believing in the message of Jesus Christ, he and I alike have no problem being upset about some of the things done or said in the name of "Christianity". Creationism is an obvious easy target, but more specifically when it comes into play in government, social views regarding abortion, gay marriage, creationism in schools, and things like the 'bible belt' vote that politicians have to pander to whether or not they care. Those are the things that get most atheists (or just irreligious people in general, not necessarily militant atheists) agitated.
And yes you are spot on about the fear of being anti-semitic causing them to kind of get off the hook (and get a whole country of their own that causes no end of problems to the rest of the world, yet still gets backing from the U.S. tax dollar - but that's another story).
A lot of non-christian's views of Christians are marred by the bible thumping preacher in the public area that nobody wants to listen to but who legally is protected in his rights to be a loud donkey-cave.
Ribon Fox wrote:I call forth Bill Hicks...Again EMBEDDING VIDEOS OR IMAGES CONTAINING PROFANITY IS A VIOLATION OF FORUM RULES. LINKING IS FINE, IF A NSFW LABEL IS APPLIED. -The Mgmt.
Coconuts...really...thats was the best that they could come up with? Talk about Fail, in fact thats an Epic Fail with no chance of it becomming a Win.
Coconuts.....
Bless you for finding and posting that! Freakin' great stuff!
frgsinwntr wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
MisterMoon wrote:No one doubts that religious fundementals are a dangerous breed.
And some of the most dangrous ones are the fundamentalist athiests.
GG
Fundamentalism in any regard, is dangerous
ALSO. I'm curious... what argument do you have for creationism? The Bible isn't an argument btw... We need physical evidence... which we can test.
+1 on any/all fundamentalism being bad, mkay! but i thought Red X was the proof of creation!?
Monster Rain wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:ALSO. I'm curious... what argument do you have for creationism? The Bible isn't an argument btw... We need physical evidence... which we can test.
I'm afraid then when someone thinks the bible is the literal word of God they don't require any further evidence be given.
The larger point is, I don't think proving the world was created by God is going to win people over to Salvation. I know that Jesus certainly didn't mention it when he gave the Great Commission. I think he talked more about loving everyone and being excellent to each other. I think more Christians should work on that.
Guitardian wrote:I don't think the theism in question is necessarily Christianity, Orlanth, it is the notion in the first place that gets challenged by unbelievers.
True, the nail that sticks out furthest gets the hammer.
It doesnt get taken to the Jews door partly because Judaism is insular but also because anti-Semitic is a nasty label, no-one has too many problems being anti-Christian.
I like Christians, some of them, one of my best friends is a pastor in Portland and a very wise old man I have known for a long time. Despite being an ordained minister, leader of a church congregation, and believing in the message of Jesus Christ, he and I alike have no problem being upset about some of the things done or said in the name of "Christianity". Creationism is an obvious easy target, but more specifically when it comes into play in government, social views regarding abortion, gay marriage, creationism in schools, and things like the 'bible belt' vote that politicians have to pander to whether or not they care. Those are the things that get most atheists (or just irreligious people in general, not necessarily militant atheists) agitated.
Not just you atheists, either. Those of us coming from different religions also aren't too psyched to see politicians who can't understand or don't respect the principle of Separation of Church & State trying to weld their particular religious beliefs into law. The founders specifically wanted religion separate from governance because they knew from (then) current and recent history what one sect does to another's worshippers when one is exalted in and linked to the government. Look at the English Civil War and Cromwell burning Catholics.
We're also not too happy to see large Christian congregations used as tools in election politics, especially when it's done in violation of IRS restrictions on nonprofit churches. Or even when it's done without breaking the letter of the law but while circumventing it, for that matter.
From my perspective the inappropriate application of religious (or religiously-derived) doctrine into the public and legislative sphere is harmful and sometimes actively dangerous. I remember the first time I read Deuteronomy 12:3 as a kid, the KJV version. I was kind of upset and worried. I already knew that they were burning people's D&D books ( ); I wasn't psyched about the prospect of them burning my places of worship.
King James Bible wrote:And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.
Who gave you that crazy idea? Was it the Scientists who have actually invested time, money, effort, data, research, isotope readings, etc.....or those theistic believers that postulate off the top of their head?
Who gave you that crazy idea? Was it the Scientists who have actually invested time, money, effort, data, research, isotope readings, etc.....or those theistic believers that postulate off the top of their head?
Yea! Those crazy scientists and their science! Being all sciencey and proven and stuff! Well if they don't like the truth, that T-Rex clearly ate Coconuts, then they can pack up their science into their science-type-cars, and giiiiiit out!
Because where I lived, preachers showed up in the middle of the downtown city center every wednesday night and boomed their booming voices for all to hear, with a police escourt to protect their free speech. The neighborhood wingnut doing the same would get arrested or told to move along or get arrested.
Did an atheist ever try that and get arrested? Because otherwise I don't see any reason why that would be true.
Also, speaking of family guy, IIRC there was an episode where it is discovered that Brian is an Atheist, and the whole town starts saying he is a bad person or whatever. Like, they say that's the worst thing you can be. Do some people really think that is the perception Christians have of Atheists? Maybe some, but if you really think that, you have some kind of insecurity with your belief, but then again, most people would seem to.
Well it is true and I saw someone get moved for playing a drum, aka making noise.. while the preacher guy was bellowing aka making noise. On more than one occasion this type of favoritism occured.
Well perhaps after hearing that the veliciraptors were related to chickens he went and decided that chickiens eat feed (cornmeal), so he needed to step up from that and got coconuts. That said I listend to a rather boring piece of crap by a BBC radio reporter who went to the aformentioned crapatorium, and she seemed rather impressed by the chap. Sadly there must not have been any shiney objects or pinwheels around or she might have gotten distracted, and made a better interview of the pinwheel. Should you be interested in hearing her, she is on "Speaking of Faith" on the BBC.
It creeps me out that eloquence is mistaken for intelligence. A lot of people can say nothing and sound good saying it, and be taken seriously no matter if they think the earth is young or flat or riding the back of a space tortoise, they get taken seriously because they approximate the communication style of scientific types, leading the ignorant know-no-betters to an illusion that they are actually making sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: and I quote my own dumb ass on that. I have no idea how much bs I have gotten away with saying to drunk people.
Orlanth wrote:If that is the care then don't care. Don't mention it, let it slip by. I have a non interest in football, expressed by a non-interest, got a football thread, I ignore it. Don't care to the point that I don't know who these big players are or where they play or what they are doing.
However you analogy might hold more sense if so many people didn't regularly turn up for a not-football match and kick off.
Yeah, this is what puzzles me about this new movement in atheism. I had a couple of cousins go to the atheism convention in Melbourne or Sydney recently. It was headed by Richard Dawkins and well, how do you talk about atheism for three days?
Because you can't talk about non-belief in something. It'd be like forming a club based on a mutual dislike of sport, saying 'I don't like sport' takes about three seconds, and after that inevitably they're left talking about how bad sport is, and how everyone else should wise up and start disliking sport like they already do.
It's the same for these atheists, they're coming together to complain about religion. It's just as ugly as the weird hostility that some religious folk have towards atheists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, it would seem to me that a lot of people think of this when they think of Christianity.
I'm a drunk, rock and roller, pothead, evolutionist, abortionist (maybe, I haven't taken part in one but I believe they should be legal), liberal, fornicator, atheist, and rich (again arguably, I don't know what this guy's limit is).
So I'm nine times damned, anyone got that beat?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike Noble wrote:Also, speaking of family guy, IIRC there was an episode where it is discovered that Brian is an Atheist, and the whole town starts saying he is a bad person or whatever. Like, they say that's the worst thing you can be. Do some people really think that is the perception Christians have of Atheists? Maybe some, but if you really think that, you have some kind of insecurity with your belief, but then again, most people would seem to.
There is hostility there, bizarrely.
But a lot of atheists attempt to try and create this idea that they're somehow persecuted like homosexuals, which is crap.
lets see if I can beat your score... demoncrat (can't vote though), drunk, rock (no roll thats so 1950's), former pothead, evolutionist, prosperity preacher, worldy (what is luke warm?)... I think I got you beat if only they added a few more like "free-thinker, discordian, avatar of cegorrach, street people, slacker, nixger lover", and um... "toothed"
Atheists are not persecuted, except in grade school, where I still hold a bitterness for all the kids that knew each other from sunday school or cub scouts, and I was the outsider being told I was a 'satanist' before I even knew what that meant. It's the mindset thrust upon children that I object to. Especially when the thinkers(1) are outnumbered by the brainwashed(the rest) in a place like a playground.
sebster wrote:I'm a drunk, rock and roller, pothead, evolutionist, abortionist (maybe, I haven't taken part in one but I believe they should be legal), liberal, fornicator, atheist, and rich (again arguably, I don't know what this guy's limit is).
So I'm nine times damned, anyone got that beat?
Well, i can add democrat, but i have to subtract rich, so just a tie....
If that placard is true I am in trouble being a once-saved always-saved Christian. In fact with a full read through it looks like 'Scientology' got it right. Sounds like most of us are screwed then.
The reason we discuss evolution is not any fixation on the subject on the part of the church, but a need to defend against attack.
The dogma that 'evolution disproves God' is still very prevalent, I find I am playing whack-a-mole with it every couple of months or so. The Family Guy clip is evident of that, see how the 'churches' alternative to evolution is depicted : hardline young earthism. Yes the clip has comic licence but the message remains and is all too often the only one seen. Too many God-haters like to imply 'science say this and the church says that' placing evolution apparently in their court and making blanket claims on what others believe based on a small minority.
Only ignorant people say that evolution disproves God, and they say it because of the small but loud group of Christians saying that God disproves evolution. It's wrong to say, but you can understand why ignorant people would. Evolution merely disproves Young Earth Creationism/Intelligent Design.
Orlanth wrote:
Its also interesting that this always comes to the foot of the Christian church, and not the Moslems or Jews who also consider Genesis sacred. It has not escaped my attention that some of those taking an atheistic point of view in supposed 'atheism vs theism' arguments, with the theism being attacked being identifiably Christianity, and some of the 'atheists' revealing themselves as Buddhists on other threads.
If you want to see a different side ask a different question.
That is the whole Young Earth Creationism/ID vs Evolution gak storm has been stirred up by a small but loud group of Christians who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, as calculated by Bishop Usher. Jewish and Muslim people are not interested in this. While they may take the Bible as a sacred book, they do not believe in its literal truth, and they don't make arguments in that direction.
The attack on evolution by YEC/IDs is an attack on all of evidence based science, and an attack on proper education of young people.
People do not broadly oppose belief in religion or Christianity in particular. 70% of the UK population registers itself as Christian. That doesn't mean they have to be YEC/IDs or accept YEC/ID arguments.
Guitardian wrote:lets see if I can beat your score... demoncrat (can't vote though), drunk, rock (no roll thats so 1950's), former pothead, evolutionist, prosperity preacher,
Are you sure you're a prosperity preacher? They're the guys that preach that loving God will bring money into your life. It's actually good that this guy wants to condemn those guys, they're donkey-caves.
worldy (what is luke warm?)...
It means people that aren't hardcore enough in their Christian beliefs.
and um... "toothed"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:Well, i can add democrat, but i have to subtract rich, so just a tie....
I feel bad about that rich thing, because it's probably a little misleading. I'm not rich by any Western standard, I'm just another middle class schmoe really. It's just that the sign writer doesn't give his own standard is guys standard, and I did one of those tests the other day where you put in your income and it tells you where you come in relation to the rest of the world, and it gave a result in the top few percent*. I just thought it was funny that almost all of us in the developed world, and likely the guy holding the sign, will all be condemned to hell for earning the going rate.
*that's the point of the test, anyone earning a middle class income in a developed country like yours or mine will be among the highest few percent of income earners in the world.
I think I may have 10 qualifications for "damnation"
Drunk- I've definitely been known to toss back a few.
Rock & Roller-Been in a few bands.
Adultery-cheated on my first wife (yeah jerk move).
Pothead-not so much anymore..but at one time.
Catholic-Non practicing,but it's the "Family" religion.
Abortionist-Well..I'm pro-choice.
Fornicator....
Atheist-....
Liberal-..On certain things
Satanist-..I agree with alot of Anton LaVey's views.
Rich...Well..I'm comfortable.
Orlanth wrote:Its also interesting that this always comes to the foot of the Christian church, and not the Moslems or Jews who also consider Genesis sacred.
I would imagine it is because most people in the Western world are raised being at least aware of Christianity, given that our cultures are nominally "Christian" in nature and origin and are thus more aware of Christianity than other religions. Added to which, Christianity is the religion which most people they are likely to actually come across in debates such as this identify as.
I don't know how many Jews or Muslims there are on Dakka, and more specifically how many of them take a literal creationist stance within their religion (or indeed any stance on their religion which could be debated), but I would imagine it is an extreme minority.
Sorry for the whimsical OT anecdote:
At a market a while ago, saw a hellfire and damnation doom merchant gnashing his teeth against all and sundry promising there would be eternal flames awaiting us all if we repent not.
Five yards away was a chap selling disposable lighters 3 for a pound.
I just thought it was a nice juxtaposition.
Bought a novelty T-rex coconut cracker from one of the stalls.
That is the whole Young Earth Creationism/ID vs Evolution gak storm has been stirred up by a small but loud group of Christians who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, as calculated by Bishop Usher. Jewish and Muslim people are not interested in this. While they may take the Bible as a sacred book, they do not believe in its literal truth, and they don't make arguments in that direction.
The attack on evolution by YEC/IDs is an attack on all of evidence based science, and an attack on proper education of young people.
People do not broadly oppose belief in religion or Christianity in particular. 70% of the UK population registers itself as Christian. That doesn't mean they have to be YEC/IDs or accept YEC/ID arguments.
This is why we have problems.
Jewish and Muslim people are not interested in this. While they may take the Bible as a sacred book, they do not believe in its literal truth, and they don't make arguments in that direction.
This is not so, there is a lot of pressure in the UK schools system at the moment from creationist Islamists, not Christians. However that is mostly a deliberate counterculture move and a way to highlight 'insufficient' Islamisation of the schools. The Bible belt vocalists in the US are a very sm,all minority, the issues are more political than spiritual as intellectual polarisation breeds separation and congeals the congregation. Anywhere else this wouldn't happen, or would happen in another way.
Jews consider the pentateuch holy to the point that not a letter can be changed, they are just quiet about it.
In any case for non literalism to be considered systemic for them it should be considered systemic for others, as in the Christian denominations.
That is the whole Young Earth Creationism/ID vs Evolution gak storm has been stirred up by a small but loud group of Christians who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, as calculated by Bishop Usher.
Do you understand what you wrote there?
Young Earth Creationism/ID vs Evolution gak storm
Here we come back to the crunch of creation vs evolution, there is no versus because it can be argued and has been argued and by your interpretation the Jews and Moslems argue that one is an explanation of the other. Placing young earth creationism on the same side of intelligent design against evolution is a gross distortion.
The problem is that evolution has been hijacked by atheists whereas evolution is not inherently an atheist doctrine. Darwin was not an atheist but an agnostic. So when creationists see this as another example of 'the increase of knowledge' and an explanation as to how the universe is ordered it can be approached with or without God in accordance to ones paradigm. ID vs Evolution is only a 'shitstorm' if you unilaterally insist on making it one, and it mainly boils down to throwing other creationists in with the young earth creationists in order to ignore their viewpoint that science itself could be seen as the toolbox of God.
The attack on evolution by YEC/IDs
Had you wrote 'the attack on ID/evoution by YECs' you would have been fairer and more consistent with what you assume Jews and Moslems are saying. You follow up with this:
is an attack on all of evidence based science, and an attack on proper education of young people.
.....effectively implying that religion is such. At the very least giving atheism a false position of authority.
we see this one a lot, a dogma that goes something like this atheism is science, therefore science is incompatible with religion, therefore religion is incompatible with education. It falls apart from stage one, because atheism is religion.
Yeah, that protest sign omits every genre/group of people with the exception of chrisitians. Seriously, being a christian must be dull....enjoy that dull and meager existence that ramps up to no reward after death. Is it just me or do these signs also look like the craftsmanship of a KKK banner.....and for that matter...seemingly the KKK and killing people out of ignorant racism is mysteriously missing from this sign...
The most humorous part of this protest is the fact that Rich People are targeted....as if being poor white trash automatically buys you a ticket to heaven. I guess sacrificing for an education, wanting to have something beyond a 3rd grade reading level, and being successful in life is a sin?
Maybe its that whole IQ thing and the ability to rationalize creationism vs. evolutionism in an intelligent way.
Yeah, that protest sign omits every genre/group of people with the exception of chrisitians. Seriously, being a christian must be dull....enjoy that dull and meager existence that ramps up to no reward after death. Is it just me or do these signs also look like the craftsmanship of a KKK banner.....and for that matter...seemingly the KKK and killing people out of ignorant racism is mysteriously missing from this sign...
Several denominations of Christianity ARE on that banner
FITZZ wrote: I think I may have 10 qualifications for "damnation"
Drunk- I've definitely been known to toss back a few.
Rock & Roller-Been in a few bands.
Adultery-cheated on my first wife (yeah jerk move).
Pothead-not so much anymore..but at one time.
Catholic-Non practicing,but it's the "Family" religion.
Abortionist-Well..I'm pro-choice.
Fornicator....
Atheist-....
Liberal-..On certain things
Satanist-..I agree with alot of Anton LaVey's views.
Rich...Well..I'm comfortable.
Acording to the wimminz I've talked to that are catholic, I was damned when I was born, basically
is an attack on all of evidence based science, and an attack on proper education of young people.
.....effectively implying that religion is such. At the very least giving atheism a false position of authority.
we see this one a lot, a dogma that goes something like this atheism is science, therefore science is incompatible with religion, therefore religion is incompatible with education. It falls apart from stage one, because atheism is religion.
I have made it very clear in this thread that religion as mainstream as the Pope accepts evolution. I have also stated that nothing in the scientific theory of evolution denies the existnece of a Creator.
That cannot be taken as implying that religion is anti science.
YEC/IDs is anti-science. It denies the evidence for evolution, and wishes ID to be taught as a scientific theory.
What "theory" could it really be taught as though? At it's bare bones, one can say that it is theoretically possible that there is a logical intelligence behind the creation of well, everything that we can possibly come to understand. But.... It ends there. What's left to teach in the school? ID as a theory just says "Something bigger than we comprehend may have put some thought into our existance and the existance of everything we know as everything".
Nowhere on the menu are magical apples, conflagrating underbrush, ocean cruises via whale, plagues of bugs, sheep entrails, or anything else.
Okay, you win, ID, theory is valid: Something we CANNOT comprehend MIGHT have made Everything we TRY to comprehend.
What's left to teach? Going beyond the basic admission that we may have been created by something meta-bigger than us - no specifics of what or why or how because we cannot know it's that much greater than us... what is left is tall tales, fables, legends, myths, bed time stories, adaptations of even older religions, santa clause and egg laying bunnies, zombies, god-wrath, and a smattering of actual historical accounts to give an illusion that the whole thing is a historical record.
ID says that there isn't evolution, that everything is built by an intelligent designer (== God).
This sounds scientific because of the Irreducible Complexity concept. The problem is that ID is incorrect. At least, the example given of Irreducible Complexity have been shown to have the kind of intermediate stages that ID says can't exist.
The Pope, the CofE and many other Christian sects, have no problem with the idea that God created the universe with a set of physical laws that lead to the formation of planets and evolution as described by science.
.
..Hmph...and here I was thinking that Texas was Gods great practical joke on the rest of the States. 
